University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

(USC Thesis Other)

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MUSICAL SELF-EFFICACY OF GRADUATE STUDENTS
IN SOUTH KOREA AND THE UNITED STATES

Yoo Ji Hwang

A dissertation
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Musical Arts

University of Southern California
August 2019

Advisory Committee:
Dr. Beatriz Ilari, Chair
Dr. Peter Webster
Dr. Judy Lewis

i
Dedication

Dear God. You made it all happen.
Without your guidance, I would not able to finish this journey.
Thank you and I love you.

The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he
leads me beside quiet waters, he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his
name’s sake. Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with
me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of
my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely your goodness and love will
follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Psalm 23

ii
Acknowledgements

It was not easy for me to complete a 7 years of academic journey. Without support of
wonderful people in my life, I would not have been able to persevere and complete each required
step.
To my parents and siblings: Thank you so much for the overwhelming amount of support
throughout this process. Your love and encouragement were truly powerful vehicle for every step
I made. I am also thankful for believing in me. I love each of you.
To my advisor, Dr. Beatriz Ilari: I sincerely appreciate the guidance, time, and energy
you have given me over the past several years. You were always willing to help me whenever I
struggled. Dr. Peter Webster, it was a truly blessing to have you as my faculty member at USC.
Your devotion to music education has been a great inspiration to me. Dr. Judy Lewis, thank you
for sharing your wisdom and knowledge for improving this work. I am also grateful for your
kindness and encouragement. Professor Larry Livingston, thank you for your support and
encouragement. You have showed me the picture of the good mentor that I want to be.
To my dearest friends: The time that I spent with all of you for last 6 years in Los
Angeles were incredibly valuable in my life. I would not forget each moment. You all supported
me emotionally and religiously. Thank you, Andy Song, Hwana Lee, Eunice Kim, Sam Song,
Sean Lee, Youyeon Kim, Annie Akyung Woo, Mingon Kim, Myungsung Kang, Jihyun Lim,
Kihyun Park, Kichae Park and Eunjoo Seo.
To the study participants: I deeply thank for your time and commitment for this study. I
am honored to have had the opportunity to learn about your experience and your opinions. Thank
you for your willingness to open up yourselves.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………... i
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………… ii
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………... iii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………….. v
List of Figure …………………………………………………………………………….. vi
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………….. vii
Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………………………………………... 1
Theoretical Framework …………………………………………………………... 2
Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………………… 4
Research Questions ………………………………………………………………. 4
Need for the Study ………………………………………………………………... 5
Study Design and Limitations ……………………………………………………. 6
Researcher Positioning and Assumptions ………………………………………... 7
Definitions of Terms ……………………………………………………………… 7
Overview of Chapters …………………………………………………………….. 9
Chapter Two: Review of Literature …………………………………………………… 10
Albert Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy ……………………………………….. 10
Self-Efficacy and Related Motivational Constructs …………………………. 11
Self-Efficacy in Academic Achievement ………………………………………… 13
Self-Efficacy in Musical Achievement …………………………………………... 15
Criticisms of Self-Efficacy Theory ………………………………………………. 22
Cultural Differences of South Korea and the United States ……………………… 24
Teaching and Learning Styles in South Korea and in the United States …….. 32
Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 38
Chapter Three: Methodology …………………………………………………………... 40
The Qualitative Approach ………………………………………………………... 40
The Case Study …………………………………………………………………… 41
Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………………………. 42
Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………………... 42
Research Settings and Recruitment Strategies …………………………………… 43
Study Participants ……………………………………………………………. 44
Data Collection …………………………………………………………………… 47
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………... 47
Data Validation …………………………………………………………………… 48

iv
Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 49
Chapter Four: Findings ………………………………………………………………… 50
Previous musical experience ……………………………………………………... 51
Deliberate practice ………………………………………………………………... 54
Pedagogical relationships ………………………………………………………… 56
Technique vs. musicality …………………………………………………………. 60
Goal setting ……………………………………………………………………….. 62
Peer relationships …………………………………………………………………. 64
Influences of higher education …………………………………………………… 68
Frames of mind .…………………………………………………………………... 72
Self-confidence …………………………………………………………………… 74
Self-deprecation …………………………………………………………………... 75
Depression ………………………………………………………………………... 77
Independence ...…………………………………………………………………… 78
Self-criticism ……………………………………………………………………... 79
Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………………… 80
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion ……………………………………………... 82
Discussion of Findings and their Articulations to the Literature ………………... 82
Returning to the Research Questions …………………………………………….. 85
Question One ………………………………………………………………… 85
Question Two ………………………………………………………………... 86
Question Three ………………………………………………………………. 90
Implications for Music Teaching and Learning ………………………………….. 95
Performance experiences …………………………………………………….. 95
Supportive environments …………………………………………………….. 95
Constructive criticism and encouragement ………………………………….. 96
Mental preparedness …………………………………………………………. 97
Recommendations for Future Study ……………………………………………… 97
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………... 98
References ……………………………………………………………………………….. 103
Appendices
Appendix A- Interview Protocol …………………………………………………. 110
Appendix B- USC Institution Review Board Approval ………………………….. 112

v
List of Tables

Table 1: Background Information of Study Participants …………………………………... 46
Table 2: Similarities and Differences between the Three Groups …………………………. 72

vi
List of Figure

Figure 1: Representation of Emergent Themes and their Articulations …………………… 51

vii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this qualitative, multiple-case study was to examine the perceptions of
musical self-efficacy of graduate students in two countries, to gauge how different culture and
learning experiences affected their perceptions of musical self-efficacy. 15 participants from
three different groups were recruited for this multiple case study: American, Korean and
international students from South Korea studying in the United States. These students were
majoring in classical music instruments and pursuing their masters’ or doctoral degrees at top
music schools in both countries in a university setting. International students were chosen to see
whether their musical self-efficacy differed from that of their peers in South Korea through their
study abroad experiences. In-depth interviews with participants revealed that previous successful
experiences in music were the strongest determinant of higher musical self-efficacy. Participants
also considered practice time as a significant indicator of higher musical self-efficacy. In general,
participants in this study showed a higher level of musical self-efficacy. Interview data also
indicated that international students became more confident and independent after they
experienced different culture and learning environments. International students were able to
develop their own musical interpretations in a culture, where their musical ideas were more
valued and encouraged. Positive feedback and encouragement from American teachers also
played a factor to ensure success in their music performances, producing more positive
outcomes. Although findings from this study concurred with the idea that mastery experiences
are the strongest influence on musical self-efficacy, some different meanings emerged from
Korean and international students. This suggest that Bandura’s self-efficacy theory may need to
be revised when applied to non-Western countries.
Keywords: Self-efficacy, musical self-efficacy, culture, practice, study abroad, Confucianism

1
Chapter One: Introduction

As an international student who learned music both in South Korea and the United States,
I have come to realize how culture impacts students’ music learning and perceptions’ of their
own music performances. Through 6 years of study abroad in the United States, I have
experienced different teaching and learning styles, and have come to the realization that these are
closely related to a culture that is embedded in a country. While studying in the United States, I
have met many international students from South Korea and found that they also experienced
different teaching and learning styles following their experiences abroad. Ever since I have
started my doctoral program in music education in the United States, I have been motivated to
compare different teaching and learning styles in both countries.
Before I moved to the United States, my major was clarinet performance. I graduated
with a music performance undergraduate degree, and completed my masters degree in music
education in the United States. My musical journey started later than students in a conservatory
in South Korea, many of whom were already deeply engaged in their music studies. Luckily, I
met a good clarinet teacher who was more like a mother to me. She was warm and caring, but
also very responsible for my progress. I sometimes felt that she was strict to me because there
were many things to cover in a short amount of time in preparation for college. For this reason, I
was made to follow her directions most of the time. Although I practiced hard, I was not able to
get many positive results since I started later than others. Every time I failed, I felt discouraged.
Being on stage became a fear to me. However, no one explained how I could overcome stage
fright. Overtime, I became unsure about my musical abilities. The competitive environment in

2
my undergraduate program always made me compare myself with others, and I chose not to
become a professional musician.
After I moved to the United States, I took both clarinet and conducting lessons. The
teachers whom I have met in the United States were very different from the teachers in South
Korea. They encouraged me a great deal and gave me more positive comments rather than
negative ones. I even felt like I was a good musician! The teachers’ encouraging comments gave
me a lot of confidence. These teachers respected me as a musician and always asked my opinions
instead of giving me directions. While studying in the United States, I accidentally read a book
about self-efficacy written by the psychologist, Albert Bandura. He suggested that a person who
believes in his or her ability to achieve goals will have a higher chance of achieving them. As I
was reading his book, I looked back on my experiences and agreed with his many ideas. If I were
more confident about myself and had a strong belief in my musical ability, I might have
continued my career as a professional musician. This made me curious about how other
musicians were doing. I wondered if they had strong beliefs in their musical abilities, and if so,
what made them have such strong beliefs. I also wondered how musicians in South Korea and
United States perceived their musical self-efficacy. Thus, the present study derives from my
experiences as an international student, who studied music in both countries and who started off
with a low self-efficacy.
Theoretical Framework
This study uses Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977) as its main
theoretical lens. According to Bandura, self-efficacy is defined as “one’s capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of actions required to produce given attainments.” (Bandura, 1997, p.3)
Bandura first developed this theory in 1977, suggesting that self-efficacy played an important

3
role in one’s behavioral change (Bandura, 1977). Especially, in situations where there are
difficulties or obstacles, self-efficacy directly influences on one’s choice of activities and
settings. For instance, people with higher self-efficacy would exert more effort and persist longer
when facing obstacles. Thus, Bandura asserted that self-efficacy is an important factor that can
motivate people’s behaviors, thus impacting on their performance outcomes as well (Bandura,
1977).
According to Bandura, self-efficacy is derived from one or more of four sources of
information, namely 1) performance accomplishments, 2) vicarious experience, 3) verbal
persuasion, and 4) emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977, p. 195). Performance accomplishments
relates to the information from an individual’s past successful experiences in given tasks.
According to Bandura, a strong self-efficacy is developed through repetitive previous successful
experiences.
The second source, vicarious experience is the information based on one’s observations
or interpretation of others in action. People persuade themselves that if others can do it, they
believe that they can also achieve some improvements. Based on observations of the actions of
others, they judge their capability.
Verbal persuasion, in turn, is the information that people receive from others, like
suggestions or persuasions that they can successfully achieve their goals. Thus, encouraging
comments from people whom one considers to be important such as family members or teachers
might serve as an assurance for someone that he or she can achieve his/her goals.
The last is emotional arousal, which is the information on physical and emotional arousal
when someone is engaging in a task. Since humans are vulnerable to anxiety and stress, the

4
success of performances is greatly influenced by emotional arousal. Thus, individuals with
higher self-efficacy are less affected by emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977).
Using Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977) as a lens as well as earlier research that
applied this theory into music learning, in this study I examined how students in South Korea
and the United States perceived their musical self-efficacy. I also considered the application of
this theory to a different cultural context, that is, with Korean students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of musical self-efficacy of
graduate students from three groups: American students, Korean students and international
students from South Korea studying in the United States. The latter group was chosen to
understand whether their musical self-efficacy differs from that of their peers in South Korea
through their study abroad experiences. Thus, a second purpose of this study was to investigate
how culture might impact students’ perceptions of musical self-efficacy.
Research Questions
To investigate graduate students’ perceptions of musical self-efficacy in South Korea and
the United States, I sought to answer following research questions.
1. How do graduate students who study music performance in South Korea and the United
States describe their musical self-efficacy?
2. What are the similarities and differences in musical self-efficacy between these three
groups of students, and what accounts for them?
3. In what ways, does studying abroad alter the perceptions of musical self-efficacy in
international students from South Korea, who are studying in the United States?

5
Need for the Study
To date, little research concerning self-efficacy has been conducted by scholars in music
education (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006; Nielsen, 2004;
Ritchie & Williamon, 2011; 2012; Martin, 2012; Cahill Clark, 2013; Hendricks, 2014; Hewitt,
2015; Zelenak, 2015; Hendricks & Smith, 2018). Also, no research was found at the time of
writing regarding culture and musical self-efficacy. Aside from contributing to the literature on
self-efficacy in music, this study will also extend the current literature regarding self-efficacy by
offering rich data from different cultural perspectives.
Another issues of concern is the fact that existing research on self-efficacy in music has
primarily focused on young musicians (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; McPherson &
McCormick, 2006; Ritchie & Williamon, 2011; Martin, 2012; Cahill Clark, 2013; Hendricks,
2014; Hewitt, 2015; Zelenak, 2015; Hendricks & Smith, 2018); little is currently known about
music major students’ self-efficacy in higher education (Nielsen, 2004; Ritchie & Williamon,
2012). Since there is a great gap in age and proficiency between young musicians and graduate
music students, the influences of self-efficacy might differ. The current study will also contribute
to this discussion.
Additionally, in current studies, many researchers have used quantitative methods to
understand students’ perceptions of musical self-efficacy (McCormick & McPherson, 2003;
Nielsen, 2004; McPherson & McCormick, 2006; Ritchie & Williamon, 2011; 2012, Hewitt,
2015; Miksza & Tan, 2015; Zelenak, 2015). While a quantitative study can potentially generalize
findings based on statistical data, the drawback of this type of research lies in the lack of detailed
information concerning the meanings associated with participants’ perceptions of musical self-
efficacy, which a qualitative study can provide (Creswell, 2013). Thus, a qualitative approach

6
was used in this study, allowing the readers to “hear” the voices of participants in much more
detail.
Study Design and Limitations
To understand and compare graduate students’ perceptions of musical self-efficacy in
South Korea and the United States, this dissertation employed a qualitative, multiple-case study.
Data was mainly collected through one-on-one, in-depth interviews with 15 participants in two
countries: South Korea and the United States. Collected data was transcribed and analyzed based
on Creswell’s content analysis (Creswell, 2008). The completed analysis of data was validated
through member checking, peer review and external audits (Creswell, 2013).
As with any study, this study also had some limitations. This study only involved
participants, who were studying music performance in university settings. This occurred because
classical music program in South Korea are usually offered in university settings. Considering
the characteristics of the university music programs, the result of this study could have been
different if participants had been recruited from a conservatory setting. In university settings,
students typically focus on performance, yet are also required to take academic subjects to
graduate. Some students who took part in this study studied instrumental performance along with
other areas such as music technology, musicology, music education. Thus, it is possible that
perceptions of musical self-efficacy in university students would differ from that of conservatory
students.
Study participants were recruited from two of the more prestigious music schools in both
countries. To enter these schools, students had to show outstanding performance skills as well as
high academic achievement. Thus, participants in these schools likely performed at a much
higher level than students from less prestigious schools, and this might have impacted their self-

7
ratings of musical self-efficacy. A study conducted with music students from different schools
could reveal different perceptions of musical self-efficacy than in the current study.
As is typical in qualitative study, this study focused on in-depth analysis of views toward
of musical self-efficacy of a small number of people, namely 15 individuals. Therefore, findings
from this study cannot be generalized. Furthermore, the study relied solely on interview data, as
it was not possible to observe lessons due to issues of access and logistics in both countries. The
purpose of lesson observations was to see how the professor and the student from different
cultures interacted during their lessons.
Researcher Positioning and Assumptions
This study was developed based on my personal experiences as an international student.
As mentioned earlier, I have experienced cultural differences in South Korea and the United
States while studying in the United States. Different cultural values and different teaching and
learning experiences in the United States altered my perception of musical self-efficacy and
strengthened musical self-efficacy. This was also seen in many of my international friends, who
graduated from Korean university and pursuing post graduate degrees in the United States.
Including myself, international students became more confident on their musical abilities after
studying abroad. Based on my personal experience and those of my friends, my assumption in
this study is that students in the United States might have higher self-efficacy than Korean
students. Also, different culture and learning styles might have impacted on international
students’ musical self-efficacy.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions of terms are employed in this dissertation. These terms emerged from
both the designing of the research and data analysis. It was necessary to provide the clear

8
definitions for each term here because people might have different understandings of them. Thus,
the definitions of terms are provided here to help readers understand how each term was
interpreted in this study.
American student-- Students who are born and raised in the United States and have studied music
performance only in the United States.
Culture-- Social behaviors or norms that are transmitted through social learning in human
society. Hofstede defined culture as the integrated pattern of mind that distinguishes the
members of group from another (Hofstede, 2011, p. 3).
Deliberate practice-- Hours of instrument practice with focused attention.
Self-criticism-- One who is modest but did not lower-estimate his/her abilities or achievements.
International student-- Students who are studying outside of their home countries. In this study,
international student refers to a student, who has studied music performance from a university in
South Korea and is currently pursuing an advanced degree in music performance in the United
States.
Korean student-- Students who are born and raised in South Korea and have studied music
performance only in South Korea.
Self-deprecation-- One who humbly expresses his/her abilities or achievements, and also lower-
estimate it.
Musical ability-- Students’ beliefs regarding their personal proficiency of music skills
Musical self-efficacy-- Based on Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy, Martin altered the word in
terms of music and described musical self-efficacy as musician’s beliefs about his or her ability
to successfully complete given musical tasks (Martin, 2012, p. 46).
Perception-- One’s interpretation or understanding of a phenomenon.

9
Self-efficacy-- One’s belief in capability to achieve a given attainment. Bandura refers to self-
efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3)
Frames of mind-- State of mental consciousness or awareness of actions, feelings and thoughts.
Overview of Chapters
In this first chapter, the background for the study including the theoretical framework,
purpose of the study, research questions, need for the study, study design and limitations,
researcher positioning and assumptions, definitions of terms are presented. Chapter two is a
review of literature on self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy and academic achievement, self-efficacy
and musical achievement, cultural differences and different teaching and learning styles in South
Korea and the United states. Chapter three offers a description of the research design and
methodology. Chapter four presents the findings from the study through voices of 15 study
participants who took part in the in-depth interviews. Chapter five offers a discussion of the
findings based on the research questions and review of literature, and provides implications for
future research and practice in music education.

10
Chapter Two: Review of Literature

This chapter reviews the literature on self-efficacy including Bandura’s self-efficacy
theory, which frames this dissertation. The studies discussed here addressed the following
questions: 1) What is self-efficacy and how is it distinguished from other related motivational
constructs?; 2) How have researchers in music and other fields studied self-efficacy?; 3) How
does self-efficacy benefits students’ learning outcomes and why is it important?; 4) What are the
potential limitations of self-efficacy theory?; 5) In what ways are South Korea and the United
States culturally different?; and 6) How does teaching and learning occur in South Korea and the
United States? Reviewed studies were grouped into seven themes, namely, Albert Bandura’s
Theory of Self-Efficacy, Self-Efficacy and Related Motivational Constructs, Self-Efficacy and
Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy and Musical Achievement, Criticisms of Self-Efficacy
Theory, Cultural Differences between South Korea and the United States, Teaching and Learning
Styles in South Korea and the United States.
Albert Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy
Albert Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). According to
Bandura, individuals have control over the influence of what they do. For instance, if people
believe that they can produce desired outcomes, they will do their best to achieve them.
However, if people believe they have no power to do it, they might not even make an attempt.
Thus, belief is a significant determinant to guide, motivate and regulate human behaviors
(Bandura, 1997).
There are diverse effects of self-efficacy. First, self-efficacy influences people to choose
the courses of actions needed to produce their desired outcomes. Self-efficacy also impacts how

11
much effort one will exert on a task, how much longer he or she will persevere when facing
obstacles and failures, as well as how much stress or anxiety can be managed when experiencing
challenging demands and environments. People with strong self-efficacy will take on challenging
tasks, invest a great amount of effort, remain focused as long as possible and cope with any
associated stress or anxiety, even if all these processes are challenging for them (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy is an important motivational force for people to achieve their goals.
According to Bandura, self-efficacy is constructed from four sources of information: 1)
enactive mastery experience or, an individual’s past experience of success or failure when
performing a given task; 2) vicarious experience or, an individual’s observations or
interpretations of role models or peer models in action; 3) verbal persuasion, judgements or
feedback from others regarding the task; and 4) physiological and affective states, physical and
emotional arousal when engaging in a task (Bandura, 1997; Hendricks, 2009; Zelenak, 2015).
One’s self-efficacy may be constructed through one or more of these sources of information.
While the construction of self-efficacy may vary depending on the person, enactive mastery
experience is considered to be the most powerful source of information in the creation of a strong
and resilient self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy and related motivational constructs.
Bandura further explained how self-efficacy is different from other motivational
constructs such as outcome expectancy, self-concept, and self-esteem. According to outcome
expectancy theory (Bandura, 1977), one’s performance is influenced by the individual’s
expectancy, which leads to a desirable outcome. A positive expectation can serve as an incentive
leading to a desirable outcome, whereas a negative expectancy may hinder one’s performance

12
and its outcomes. Thus, a person will not be motivated in face of a negative outcome (Schunk,
1989).
Self-concept can be defined as a belief about oneself that incorporates descriptive
knowledge and feelings toward one’s abilities (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-concept is based on
individual experiences in different environments, and evaluations made by significant others. For
this reason, self-concept needs to be understood in a multidimensional structure. Compared to
self-efficacy, which can predict one’s behavior, self-concept is more concerned with a composite
view of self-image. Thus, it cannot predict one’s behavior.
Self-esteem, in turn, refers to a judgement of self-worth. While self-efficacy is concerned
with a judgement of personal capability, self-esteem is concerned with how individuals feel
about themselves. For instance, a person may judge oneself as efficacious yet not take pride in
his or her performance. Self-esteem cannot predict goals nor performance outcomes in the same
way that self-efficacy can (Bandura, 1997).
All of the aforementioned concepts along with self-efficacy are similar in terms of the
regulation of one’s motivation leading to the production of a desired outcome. However, self-
efficacy differs from the other concepts in its specificity and correspondence to a specific task
(Bandura, 1997). To be more specific, self-efficacy is more domain-focused, whereas outcome
expectancy, self-esteem, and self-concept are more general. For instance, self-efficacy in
composing music and self-efficacy in conducting are different, even if both are musical
activities.
Self-efficacy also reveals more benefits for academic settings compared to the other
related motivational concepts. As previously mentioned, self-efficacy affects diverse forms of
motivation such as choice of activities, level of effort, persistence, and emotional reactions

13
(Bandura, 1997). A student with higher self-efficacy will readily take more challenging tasks
when compared to a student who doubts his or her capabilities. This same student will also
engage in more activities even if confronted with challenging tasks. Also, this person will work
harder, persist longer and have less negative emotional reactions when they encounter difficulties
(Bandura, 1997). Thus, self-efficacy is considered to be a stronger determinant and predictor of
accomplishment than the other three constructs (Pajares, 1996).
Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement
Since there is limited research regarding self-efficacy in music, self-efficacy in other
subject areas has been studied, especially its relationship with academic achievement. As
expected, many researchers have investigated the association between self-efficacy and academic
achievement (Pajares & Miller, 1994; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares & Johnson, 1996;
Britner & Pajares, 2006).
Pajares and Miller (1994) conducted a study to investigate whether self-efficacy was a
stronger predictor of students’ mathematics problem solving skills compared to other related
motivational features such as self-concept, math anxiety, perceived usefulness of mathematics
and prior experience with mathematics. The researchers distributed a self-report instrument with
questions based on the aforementioned variables to 350 undergraduate students. After
completing this self-report measure, the students took a mathematics test. Results revealed that
self-efficacy was a stronger predictor of mathematics problem solving skills when compared to
other variables such as math self-concept, perceived usefulness of mathematics, prior experience
with mathematics. The researchers asserted that self-concept and math anxiety could be mediated
by having a different perception of self-efficacy (Pajares & Miller, 1994).

14
In a subsequent study, Pajares and Kranzler (1995) examined the influence of self-
efficacy of 329 high school students when solving math problems. They replicated Pajares and
Miller (1994) study to gauge general mental ability, self-efficacy and anxiety. The researchers
used path analysis to examine potential associations between variables. The findings revealed
that students’ self-efficacy about math capability directly affected their math anxiety, with the
latter being strongly correlated to math problem solving skills (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995).
Next, Pajares and Johnson (1996) examined the influence of self-efficacy, writing
apprehension and writing aptitude on essay writing performances of 181 high school students.
The researchers first asked students to complete a questionnaire regarding self-efficacy and
writing apprehension. Next, they asked the students to write an essay in 30 minutes. Path
analysis was used to examine correlations between the variables. Results indicated that students’
perceptions of self-efficacy were strong predictors of their writing performances. Also, there was
a significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and writing apprehension and writing
aptitude (Pajares & Johnson, 1996).
Britner and Pajares (2006) investigated the degree in which source of self-efficacy
predicted science achievement of 319 middle-school students (155 boys, 164 girls). They also
explored whether there was a gender difference in beliefs of self-efficacy in science. The
researchers administered the adapted version of Sources of Science Self-Efficacy Scale,
originally used for the domain of mathematics (Lent et al., 1996). The instrument consisted of
four subscales measuring mastery experience (8 items), vicarious experience (7 items), social
persuasion (8 items), and physiological states (8 items). After collecting the data, the researchers
conducted an exploratory factor analysis to examine correlations between the items within each
scale. The results revealed that each of the subscales significantly correlated with each other. The

15
researchers also conducted a regression analysis to examine the relations among multiple
variables, and showed that mastery experience positively predicted science self-efficacy.
Interestingly, science self-efficacy was higher in girls than boys (Britner & Pajares, 2006).
To summarize, earlier research suggests that self-efficacy and students’ academic
performances are correlated (Pajares & Miller, 1994; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares &
Johnson, 1996; Britner & Pajares, 2006). Findings from these studies also suggest that self-
efficacy is the strongest determinant of students’ academic achievement when compared to other
motivational factors.
Self-Efficacy in Musical Achievement
Although self-efficacy is clearly related to students’ academic performances, it is
important to remember that it is also domain specific (Bandura, 1997). This suggests that
findings in academic studies might differ in the field of music from findings in other fields. For
this reason, this section focuses on the relationships between self-efficacy and musical
achievement.
McCormick and McPherson (2003) conducted a study on the role of self-efficacy in a
music performance exam. They distributed a questionnaire to 332 students (age range 9-18
years) who were taking the Trinity College-London Music Certificate Examination. The
questionnaire included questions about self-regulatory learning components such as cognitive
strategy use, self-regulation, and motivation components like intrinsic value, anxiety, and self-
efficacy in instrumental learning. Consistent with findings from studies in other fields (Pajares &
Miller, 1994; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Britner & Pajares, 2006), this
study showed a strong relationship between self-efficacy and music performance. Furthermore,

16
students with higher self-efficacy chose challenging tasks, exerted more effort and persisted
longer compared to their peers with lower self-efficacy (McCormick, McPherson, 2003).
In a follow up study, McPherson and McCormick (2006) examined the role of motivation
in young musicians. As in their previous work (McCormick & McPherson, 2003), they
distributed a survey to 686 students between the ages of 9 and 19 who were completing the
performance examination of the Australian Music Examination Board (AMEB) performance
examination. Once again and in accordance with their 2003 study, findings suggested that self-
efficacy was the best predictor of students’ performance results in the examination. The
researchers went on to suggest that students can achieve meaningful improvement on their
instrumental learning by improving their levels of self-efficacy (McCormick, & McPherson,
2006).
Ritchie and Williamon (2011) investigated children’s musical self-efficacy and its
relationship to other areas of children’s lives such as listening to music, playing sports, dancing,
and their emotional well-being. The sample was composed by 404 British children between the
ages of 7 and 9. The adapted version of the Self-Efficacy for Musical Learning Questionnaire
(Ritchie & Williamon, 2010) was used to measure children’s musical self-efficacy. Results
showed that the students who engaged in music lessons had higher self-efficacy for music
learning compared to their non-enrolled counterparts. In addition, the results suggested that
students’ prior experience with music lessons was the strongest predictor of self-efficacy for
music learning. Additionally, there was a significant correlation between students’ self-efficacy
for music learning and other variables including well-being and other daily activities such as
dancing, doing homework and reading for pleasure. Overall, the level of musical self-efficacy
was higher in girls than boys (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011).

17
Ritchie and Williamon (2012) conducted another study focusing on undergraduate music
major students. In this study, the researchers included two different participant groups, one with
university music students and the other with music conservatory students to examine the
relationship between self-efficacy and performance quality. 120 undergraduate music students
were asked to complete the Self-efficacy for Music Performing Questionnaire (Ritchie &
Williamon, 2011) before their performances, and then performed in front of a small audience of
6 to 10 peers and music faculty members. Likewise, 30 conservatory students were asked to rate
their overall performance skills using the same self-efficacy measure 10 minutes prior to their
performances in a similar as the first study. They were also asked how much time they spent
practicing per week over the year from the time when they began to study music. The results of
both studies indicated that self-efficacy directly impacted students’ performance qualities.
Results suggested that self-efficacy directly impacted students’ performance qualities and that
practice time was not a significant predictor of performance qualities for both groups. Neither
practice time before the performance nor the accumulation of practice time since the beginning
of their music studies predicted the quality of student performances (Ritchie & Williamon,
2012).
Cahill Clark (2013) examined the music practice behaviors, strategies and thoughts of
four high school string students who showed higher levels of self-efficacy. The four study
participants were chosen from her previous research study (2008), and were getting ready for the
Texas All-State Orchestra auditions. The researcher observed each student’s practice three times,
which was videotaped for 20 minutes and conducted interviews after each videotaped session
was completed. The researcher also asked the participants to write a practice journal for two
weeks before the audition. Findings suggested that study participants shared commonalities such

18
as taking private lessons with an expert teacher, having their own quality instruments, practicing
at home or outside of orchestra, and having positive relationships with parents and music
teachers. Differences in practice strategies, practice goals and individual priorities were also
outlined (Clark, 2012).
Zelenak (2015) conducted a study to measure Bandura’s (1997) four sources of self-
efficacy in music. The participants were 290 middle and high school students who were enrolled
in band, chorus and string orchestras. The author developed the Music Performance Self-
Efficacy Scale (MPSES), a 24-item instrument to measure mastery, vicarious experience,
verbal/social persuasion and physical and emotional arousal. The results indicated that mastery
experience had the greatest influence on students’ level of musical self-efficacy followed by
verbal/social persuasion, physical and emotional arousal and vicarious experience. There were
no significant group differences in students’ level of self-efficacy in music performance,
suggesting that participation in different types of ensembles and grade levels generated similar
amounts of self-efficacy in music performance (Zelenak, 2015).
Hendricks and Smith (2018) conducted a mixed-methods study to explore how students
develop self-efficacy and motivation when engaged with different musical genres. The
participants were 120 string players between the ages of 10 to 18 who took part in either a
classical orchestra based camp or an eclectic music camp that emphasized folk, fiddle, rock, jazz
and improvisation. During their 1-to-2 week camp, the participants completed questionnaires at
various time points (i.e., pre-audition, post-audition, midweek, pre-concert). These
questionnaires consisted of a quantitative portion of the instrument performance self-efficacy,
qualitative questions on influences of their self-efficacy, and general perspectives on camps
using an arts-based open-ended prompt. Findings indicated that there was a general increase in

19
students’ self-efficacy level over the time irrespective of the type of music that students were
learning (i.e., eclectic or classical music). According to the authors, positive musical experiences
and social experiences motivated students to engage in music. Student confidence was bolstered
the most when they were given appropriate levels of scaffolding and received support to ensure
success in their performances (Hendricks & Smith, 2018).
While the abovementioned researchers created their own scales to measure musical self-
efficacy, other researchers adapted existing scales to music. For example, Nielsen (2004)
conducted a quantitative research involving 130 first-year students in Norwegian higher
education programs. Students were asked to complete an adapted version of The Motivational
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (the MSLQ-inventory) developed by Pintrich, Smith,
Garcia and McKeachie (1991). The questionnaire consisted of three scales: 1) cognitive
strategies: rehearsal, elaboration, organization, and critical thinking; 2) metacognitive strategies:
metacognitive self-regulation; and 3) resource management strategies: time and study
environment, effort regulation, peer learning and help seeking. Findings from this study
indicated that students with higher self-efficacy used more learning and study strategies than
students with lower self-efficacy. In addition, there were significant differences between female
and male students in terms of self-efficacy. Male students were more likely to have a high level
of self-efficacy in music compared to female students, who usually had lower levels of self-
efficacy. However, there were no significant difference in students’ self-efficacy in relation to
instrument types and degree programs (Nielsen, 2004).
Martin (2012) investigated musical self-efficacy in 45 middle-school band students, who
were enrolled in an outreach program. The researcher first distributed a 60-item questionnaire
using the Schmidt Self-Efficacy Scale (2007), as well as an adapted version of Hendrick’s Self-

20
Efficacy Scale (2009), and the Asmus Motivating Factors (AMF) Scale. Next, twelve students
were interviewed on their beliefs toward musical ability. These students were selected based on
their scores questionnaire, being either the highest or lowest scores in terms of musical self-
efficacy. Interview questions were based on Bandura’s four sources of self-efficacy. As in
previous studies (Usher & Pajares, 2006; Zelenak, 2015), mastery experience emerged as the
greatest influence on students’ attributions for success and failure in music. Based on the
interviews, the researcher found that students with low self-efficacy were influenced by their
teachers’ discouraging comments. Martin concluded that teacher encouragement and positive
feedback are crucial for students’ musical self-efficacy and development (Martin, 2012).
Hendricks (2014) conducted a mixed-methods study to investigate contextual influences
on advanced high-school musicians’ self-efficacy beliefs in a competitive condition. The
researcher used questionnaires, interviews, and observations to gather data from 157 high-school
students, who participated in a 3-day honor orchestra festival. For the quantitative portion of this
study, the researcher used an adapted version of McPherson and McCormick’s (2006)
questionnaire, with a focus on performance-related items. For the qualitative portion of the study,
Hendricks conducted semi-structured interviews and observations, which were administered by a
team of sixteen researchers over the course of 3 days and were based on Bandura’s four sources
of self-efficacy. Findings revealed a significant increase in students’ self-efficacy beliefs in their
performance over the course of 3 days, with mastery experience as the greatest influence of all.
There were gender differences in musical self-efficacy within the competitive environment:
female students reported being more positively influenced by a supportive environment
compared to a competitive environment than their male counterparts (Hendricks, 2014).

21
Hewitt (2015) conducted a study to examine the relationships between two components
of self-regulation (i.e., self-efficacy and self-evaluation) and music performance of secondary
school band students. The participants consisted of 340 middle school and high school band
students, who participated in summer music camps or were members of a private middle school
band program. These students completed a self-efficacy measurement on a given musical excerpt
before performing it. Next, they evaluated their performances on the Woodwind Brass Solo
Evaluation Form (WBSEF; Saunders & Holahan, 1997) immediately after their performances.
Findings indicated that both self-efficacy and self-evaluation correlated to students’ music
performances. A self-efficacy calibration bias was calculated by subtracting the music
performance score from the self-efficacy. This score showed that students with higher
performance ability underrated their performance ability. By contrast, students with lower
performance ability overrated their ability. The reason for this was not clear and could have been
affected by some gifted female students who were more critical of themselves (Hewitt, 2015).
Miksza and Tan (2015) conducted a study to explore the relationships between teachers’
instruction and students’ practice. Specifically, they wish to determine whether students’ practice
efficiency, flow during practice and self-efficacy for self-regulation varied influenced by self-
evaluation, knowledge of practice strategies, tendencies to exhibit grit, tendencies to be reflective
on their practice, and their teacher’s methods of instruction on practice. Participants were 52
studio lesson teachers and their 241 wind players from 25 large universities in the United States.
The data were collected through online questionnaires consisted of students’ self-reports on their
practice habits, self-evaluation tendencies, practice reflection, grit, flow, practice efficiency and
self-efficacy for self-regulation. Items in the questionnaires were adapted from previous studies
including McPherson and Zimmerman’s (2011) model of the self-regulated music learner,

22
Zimmerman et al.’s (1992) measure of self-efficacy for self-regulation, and Duckworth and
Quinn’s (2009) Short Grit Scale. The teacher version questionnaire included background
information and an open-ended item that described how they would teach practice strategies for
their students on a given etude. Findings revealed that students’ self-reports on their practice
strategies and the teacher’s instructions on practice strategies were inconsistent. Findings also
indicated that students’ tendency to persevere and being reflective in their practice were
significantly related to their practice efficiency, being in flow and having self-efficacy for self-
regulation (Miksza & Tan, 2015).
Previous research also indicated that there was a strong relationship between self-efficacy
and music performance (McCormick & McPherson, 2003; 2006, Ritchie & Williamon, 2011;
2012, Zelenak, 2015; Nielson, 2004; Martin, 2012; Hendricks, 2014; Hewitt, 2015). Consistent
with Bandura’s theory (1997), mastery experience was the greatest influence on students’ level
of musical self-efficacy (Zelenak, 2015).
Criticisms of Self-Efficacy Theory
After Bandura his self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), considerable research has been
devoted to the study of self-efficacy in various fields including education, health, business and
sports (See Bandura, 1997). However, as it happens to all theories, self-efficacy theory also has
been criticized by some researchers (Klassen, 2004; Vancouver and Kendall, 2006).
Klassen (2004) conducted a review of literatures of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural
perspective. The researcher noticed that previous studies on self-efficacy were mainly conducted
in Western countries, especially in the United States. For this reason, there had been lack of
information of how self-efficacy was operationalized in people from non-Western cultures. To
understand this, Klassen reviewed the literatures based on two main groups: Asian (or immigrant

23
Asians) versus Western, and Eastern-European versus Western-European and American groups.
Using two electronic databases, ERIC and PsyINFO, Klassen searched for studies that contained
the terms “self-efficacy or collective self-efficacy” and “cross-cultural or multi-cultural” in their
abstracts for the time period of 1977-2002. The initial search revealed 150 source, but these were
later reduced to 20 articles that focused on the domains of education and business. Their analysis
of 20 sample studies showed that the levels of self-efficacy vary depending on cultural contexts.
As an example, people from non-Western cultures rated their self-efficacy lower than those from
Western cultures. To be more specific, Asian children tended to lower-estimate their self-
competence and self-worth compared to American children, even if they scored higher in
academic performance. Klassen suggested this was likely due to the fact that they were raised in
collectivist culture that valued the modesty. Because of their cultural of upbringing, Asian
children showed a tendency toward “self-criticism” and they negatively perceived the tendency
toward “self-focusing” or “self-enhancement” that is common to individualist cultures. In
addition, for Asian students, fear of academic failure was the strongest motivation for their
academic achievements. Thus, they were arguably less motivated by self-efficacy levels when
compared to non-Asian students. This suggests that self-efficacy might not necessarily predict
performance outcomes for all cultural groups, as Bandura suggested (Klassen, 2004).
Vancouver and Kendall (2006) suggested that self-efficacy might negatively affect
students’ motivation in learning contexts. They presumed that if a student had a higher self-
efficacy, this student might feel prepared enough to complete a task, thus leading him or her to
be less motivated. Furthermore, they assumed that this lack of preparation could potentially
lower his or her achievements. Thus, these authors questioned Bandura’s assertion that self-
efficacy has a positive impact on one’s motivation and performance. Based on this assumption,

24
they conducted a study to assess the role of self-efficacy during goal striving process (e.g.,
increasing their efforts to achieve their goals). The participants were 63 undergraduate students
who enrolled in college psychology class. The researchers examined the amount of time each
student planned for upcoming exams. The measurement included a self-report questionnaire with
questions on self-efficacy level, resources allocated (e.g., planned study time, reported study
time), goal level and performance. The researcher used a repeated-measures design by making
participants complete the questionnaire for the five exams during the term. They examined the
means, standard errors, and standard deviations of the variables across all five exams, and found
self-efficacy had a negative influence on planned and reported study time as well as on
performance. Participants planned to study longer or increased their study time when their self-
efficacy was low for upcoming exams. Thus, the results of this study do not support the
Bandura’s notion that self-efficacy served as a significant key for one’s motivation and
performance (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006).
These two studies are important because they caution us about the potential limitations of
self-efficacy theory, by suggesting that self-efficacy might not positively impact motivation and
performance in all students (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006), and by showing that self-efficacy
might not predict performance outcomes in all cultural groups (Klassen, 2004).
Cultural Differences of South Korea and the United States
The understanding of cultural differences between South Korea and the United States is
central to this study. Studies that focused on the cultures of South Korea and the United States
are presented in this section, in an attempt to understand how they might relate to self-efficacy.
Many scholars have been interested in similarities and differences between cultures
(Triandis, 1972; Hofstede, 1980). One of them was Harry Triandis, who is considered to be a

25
pioneer of cross-culture psychology. Triandis developed what has been known as “the
individualism and collectivism cultural syndrome,” which has been used to discuss the cultural
differences (Triandis, 1996). A culture syndrome (Triandis, 2001a) is defined as “a shared
pattern of beliefs, attitudes, self-definitions, norms, roles and valued organized around a theme”
(p. 9) According to this author, the perceptions and behavior of people in individualism and
collectivism are different. While people in individualist cultures is more focused on context than
content, people in collectivist cultures emphasize the content more than context. For instance,
people in individualist cultures are concerned more with “how” something is said based on one’s
tone of voice and gestures. By contrast, people in collectivist are more interested in “what” is
said rather than “how.” In addition, people’s behaviors are also determined different in
individualist and collectivist cultures. People in individualist cultures behave based on internal
factors (i.e., attitude, personality) and they prioritize their personal goals because they value
themselves more than their groups. However, people in collectivist cultures behave based on
external factors (i.e., norms, social roles), and they value the group goals over the personal goal
because they believe they are interdependent from their groups (i.e., family, tribe, nation)
(Triandis, 2001b; Triandis, 2004).
Triandis further explained that each individualist or collectivist culture have unique
aspects (Triandis, 2001b). Since some cultures emphasize equality whereas the others emphasize
hierarchy, he found it necessary to expand the constructs of individualism and collectivism later.
One expansion referred to the adoption of horizontal and vertical perspectives. Horizontal
cultures emphasize equality, whereas vertical cultures emphasize hierarchy. Based on this, he
identified four different types of cultures: Horizontal Individualist (HI), Vertical Individualist
(VI), Horizontal Collectivist (HC), and Vertical Collectivism (VC) (Triandis, 2001b).

26
In a horizontal individualist society, people believe that they are all equal in society
although they desire to be unique. However, in a vertical individualist society, people strive to be
the best, wanting to be different from others. In a horizontal collectivist society, in turn, people
merge themselves into society and cooperate with each other. By contrast, people accept
hierarchy and they are willing to sacrifice themselves in a vertical collectivism society (Triandis,
2001a; Triandis, 2001b).
Like Triandis, Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede also conducted research on cultural
differences. Hofstede (1979, 1980) devised a theory that aimed at describing the elements of
national cultures, known as “Dimensions of Cultures.” In 1979, he distributed a survey to
employees at IBM, to explore the work values of people from 40 different countries. The
following year, Hofstede was able to access to a large database, and he eventually collected
100,000 questionnaires from 50 countries. Based on the work values of IBM employees,
Hofstede created four initial dimensions of cultural values: Power Distance, Uncertainty
Avoidance, Individualism versus Collectivism, and Masculinity versus Femininity (Hofstede,
1980). Each dimension is understood as a continuum and measured on a scale of 0-100.
Power distance is defined as the extent of inequality that people feel in the society
(Hofstede, 1980). In a culture with a large power distance, individuals believe that power is
unequally distributed in the society, being based on one’s status (i.e., education, wealth,
occupation) (Kim, 2015). By contrast, in a culture with a small power distance, there is a
perception that power is equally distributed in society and irrespective of one’s status. The next
dimension, uncertainty avoidance, is described as the extent to which people try to avoid
uncertain situations (Hofstede, 1980). In a culture with strong uncertainty avoidance, individuals
have a tendency to preserve the rules that controlled them for long periods of time, because they

27
seek for stable, continuous and safe lives (Kim, 2015). However, in a culture with weak
uncertainty avoidance, individuals are willing to change and accept new ideas for a better future.
Whereas individualism focuses more on personal values, collectivism centers more on group
values (Hofstede, 1980). People in individualistic cultures are more interested in themselves
rather than the group to which they belong. By contrast, people in collectivist cultures are more
interested in the harmony of society, thus stressing “We” rather than “I” to integrate people in
society (Hofstede, 1980). The last dimension, masculinity, illustrates clear gender roles between
men and women, whereas femininity describes less gender roles between the two. In a masculine
culture, men are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on success of life. However, in a
feminine culture, both men and women are modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life
(Hofstede, 1980).
In addition to these four dimensions of culture, Hofstede later added a fifth dimension,
which is Long-Term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation in late 1980s (Hofstede & Bond,
1988). This dimension was based on the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) conducted by Michael
Bond (Bond, 1987), and was also called “Confucian Work Dynamism.” Since Confucianism is
not popular in western countries, Hofstede changed the dimension to Long-Term versus Short-
Term orientation (Hofstede, 2011). But what does this dimension mean? In a culture with long-
term orientation is more interested in the future: Its people value persistence, thrift, ordering
relationships by status, having a sense of shame. By contrast, in a culture with short-term
orientation values the past and the present. Here, there is an emphasis on the reciprocation of
greetings, favors and gifts, respect for tradition, protecting one’s face and personal stability
(Hofstede, 2011).

28
The sixth and last dimension that was added by Hofstede (2010) was indulgence versus
restraint. Based on the World Values Survey (WVS) (Minkov, 2007), Hofstede added this
dimension in 2010. An indulgent culture is described as one that allows people to enjoy lives
with less control. In indulgent cultures, people are happy and have more freedom in their
activities. By contrast, a culture with restraint regulates life through strict social norms
(Hofstede, 2011). For this reason, fewer people are happy as their activities are restrained by
strict social rules (Hofstede, 2011).
Based on his initial four dimensions of cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980), Hofstede
(1986) compared the cultural differences in teaching and learning. According to Hofstede, when
teacher and students come from different cultures, many tensions are prone to occur. This is
probably due to 1) different social positions of teachers and students; 2) differences in
curriculum and its relevance; 3) differences in cognitive abilities; and 4) differences in teacher -
student interactions in two different societies. Among these four factors, he chose to focus on the
last one and applied four dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, large versus small
power distance, strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity to
teacher and student interaction (Hofstede, 1986).
According to Hofstede (1986), in collectivist cultures, students will only speak in class
when they are called by their teacher. They are taught to maintain harmony in learning situations.
Academic success is considered to be a means for one to gain prestige in society, thus diploma
certificates have a significant meaning to students. On the contrary, in individualist societies,
students are encouraged to speak in class (Hofstede et al., 2010). They are taught that they can
learn from conflicts and obstacles. Academic success is viewed as a personal achievement; as a

29
means to live in society. For this reason, diploma certificates are less valued when compared to
acquiring competence (Hofstede, 1986).
In small power distance cultures, students are often taught in student-centered learning
environment (Hofstede, 1986; Hofstede, 2011). Teachers expect students to initiate
communication and they also expect their students to find their own learning paths (Hofstede et
al., 2010). Students are also encouraged to speak simultaneously in class, being allowed to
contradict their teachers’ opinions. Teachers should respect the independence of their students
and they treat their students as equals. By contrast, in large power distance societies, teacher-
centered learning environment tends to be more prevalent (Hofstede, 1986). Students expect their
teachers to initiate communication and to provide intellectual directions for them. Students are
only allowed to speak when their teachers invited them and teacher’s opinions cannot be
criticized by their students (Hofstede et al., 2010). In addition, students must show high respect
to their teacher even outside of classes (Hofstede, 1986).
In weak uncertainty avoidance cultures, students feel comfortable with unstructured
learning situations with vague learning objects and broad assignments (Hofstede, 1986).
Teachers are not expected to have all the answers and students are rewarded for innovative ideas
(Hofstede et al., 2010). However in strong uncertainty avoidance societies, students feel
comfortable with structured learning situations with precise learning objects and detailed
assignments (Hofstede, 1986). Teachers are expected to have all the answers and students are
rewarded when they demonstrate accurate knowledge (Hofstede, 2010). Teachers also encourage
parent participation in their children’s learning as they actively formulate their ideas (Hofstede et
al., 2010).

30
In feminine cultures, students’ learning is often focused on social adaptation, that is to
learn the norms and values in society. Academic success, in turn, is considered less important
(Hofstede, 1986). Teachers use average student as their standard and they do not openly praise
their students (Hofstede et al., 2010). Students are made to support each other in their learning
situations and they also expect their teachers to be close to them. In feminine societies, students
choose academic subjects based on their intrinsic interests (Hofstede, 1986). By contrast, in
masculine societies, academic performance is highly valued (Hofstede et al., 2010). Students are
made to compete with each other and they admire brilliant teachers. Students choose academic
subjects that could be benefit their future career (Hofstede, 1986).
Unsurprisingly, teacher-student interaction depends on cultures. To bridge the gap in
cross-cultural learning situations, where teacher and student come from different cultures,
Hofstede suggested that teachers pay attention to their students’ culture of origin. Teachers
should acknowledge that people learn in different ways based on the culture of their upbringing.
Since teachers have more power than their students in learning situations, Hofstede explained
that teachers play a central role in minimizing the complexities of cross-cultural learning
situations (Hofstede, 1986).
Based on Hofstede’s “Dimensions of Cultures” theory, Kim (2015) compared South
Korea and the United States using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 1980). She
confirmed that each country holds a different set of cultural values (Kim, 2015). South Korea is
described as a country with a large power distance, with a score of 60 on a 100-point scale. This
suggests that South Korea is not a country with extreme power distance. This score also indicates
that many people feel power is not evenly distributed if compared to the United States, where
people feel less power distance in society. South Korea is also considered to be a collectivist

31
country. Compared to the United States, which scored 91 on individualism, South Korea only
scored 18 on individualism. This score suggests that individuality is considered less important in
South Korea, with the United States being the opposite. On the score of masculinity, South
Korea scored 39, which means that it is more a feminine culture. South Koreans place more
value in the quality of life rather than success in life. The data also suggested that the United
States is a masculine society, with its population placing more value in individual success and
achievement. In terms of uncertainty avoidance, South Korea scored 85, which suggests a strong
uncertainty avoidance. South Koreans prefer to avoid uncertainty, and always seek for security in
their lives. This is different from the United States, which showed slightly lower score of 46 on
uncertainty avoidance. Compared to Koreans, these scores suggest that Americans are more
likely to accept new ideas and to try something new (Kim, 2015).
Interestingly, South Korea scored 100 on long-term orientation, which suggest that it is a
pragmatic country. Since Koreans are concerned with the present and the future, they are
encouraged to thrift and prepare for the future. By contrast, the United States scored 26 on long-
term versus short term orientation dimension, indicating that it is a country with short-term
orientation, where people are more concerned with the present, preferring to maintain traditions
and norms. The last dimension, the score on indulgence suggested that South Korea is considered
to be a restraint society with a score of 29, whereas the United States is considered to be an
indulgent society with a score of 68. The data also indicated that South Koreans are less focused
on their desires for pleasure, whereas Americans are highly focused on their leisure activities as a
means to enjoy their lives (Kim, 2015).

32
Now that we have discussed two important theories that attempt to explain cultural
differences between societies and countries, we turn to a discussion on teaching and learning
styles in South Korea and the United States.
Teaching and Learning Styles in South Korea and in the United States.
Teaching and learning styles vary across cultures (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). This section
focuses on how culture affects teaching and learning styles in South Korea and the United States,
including a discussion of Socratic and Confucian philosophies of learning (Liberman, 1994). The
studies presented in this section focus primarily on higher education.
Liberman (1994) conducted a study to describe Asian students’ perspectives on American
university instruction. The researcher and his students interviewed 680 students from Korea,
Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia, who enrolled at the University of
Oregon between 1985 to 1992. Focus group discussions involving three foreign students and one
American students were used to examine participants’ experiences living and studying in the
United States. Asian students’ experiences were very rich, as revealed in the data. Asian students
viewed professor-student relationships in the United States as democratic. Students reported
feeling that they were on the same level as their professors with whom they could share mutual
interests. They described feeling comfortable to express their opinions and to have conversations
with their professors. They also felt that American teachers provided them with considerable
opportunities to ask questions and engage in critical thinking. Some students mentioned that they
were able to build intimate relationship with their professors. Compared to the professors in their
home countries, Asian students described American professors as open, informal, frank, relaxed
and sociable. They also described American students as more active whereas Korean
counterparts were more passive in learning. According to the interviewees, American students

33
were not afraid to make mistakes yet were at times, overconfident and egotistical (Liberman,
1994).
Watkins (2000) conducted a meta-analysis on different teaching and learning styles from
a cross-cultural perspective. Through the review of numerous research studies from Western and
Non-Western countries including at least 8000 participants, the researcher was able to analyze
the different cultural perspectives on teaching and learning styles. The findings showed that
Chinese students believed effort to be an important attribute to academic success, whereas
Western students considered both effort and ability to be important factors for academic success.
Chinese students did not consider intelligence to be innate, but believed that it could be improved
through hard work. Also, in Western countries like the UK, notions of success were considered
individualistic. Students in Western countries also considered reasons for success not only in
terms of individuals, but also considered “significant others” including family, peers and society
(Watkins, 2000). These conceptions of success are directly linked to the Confucian Socratic
philosophies that dominate East and Western countries, respectively.
Tweed and Lehman (2002) compared teaching and learning styles influenced by two
different cultures: Socratic versus Confucian. According to them, Western cultures usually
valued the Socratic approach, which stresses inquiry. Following the writings of Greek
philosopher Socrates, the Socratic approach aims at questioning one’s own or other’s beliefs and
evaluating knowledge by asking deeper questions and generating hypotheses. By contrast,
Eastern cultures value the Confucian approach, influenced by Confucius who inspired the
Chinese for more than ten thousand generations. The Confucian approach stresses that the goal
of learning is acquiring knowledge. Rather than developing thinking skills like in the Socratic
approach, the Confucian approach encourages students to learn the essential skills and moral

34
behavior necessary to become a good citizen who will help to build a harmonious society. This
approach also values respect and effort, thus students learning in a Confucian approach tend to
be obedient to their teachers and work hard to succeed in school. Tweed and Lehman (2002)
concluded that students who could flexibly adapt to both the Socratic and the Confucian
approach would benefit from both intellectual traditions.
Ho and his colleagues (2002) described the Confucian heritage in the education systems
of Asian countries, criticizing and offering much evidence to sustain his criticisms. According to
these authors, the Confucian heritage is translated in placing highly values academic
achievement. For this reason, students experience an excessive pressure to succeed in school
from very early in. Since passing exams is overemphasized in these education systems, students
make exams a goal and work diligently to pass them. (There was even a popular saying that
depicted this, “Four hours of sleep and pass, five hours of sleep and fail.”) The authors viewed
this enormous amount of pressure as eventually threatening students’ mental health. The authors
also mentioned three dogmas associated with education systems inspired by Confucianism. The
first dogma is the acquisition of “correct” knowledge; not the discovery of new knowledge. The
second dogma is the superiority of the written word over oral discussion. The third and the final
dogma is high respect for teachers who are viewed as repositories of knowledge. According to
Ho and colleagues, these dogmas inhibited the development of creativity, impeded the
development of oral skills, and urged students to be obedient to their teachers. Furthermore, the
authors also pointed out that the authoritarian relationship between teacher and students created
fear, making students afraid of their teachers and daring not to ask provocative questions. To
avoid being ridiculed by teachers and friends, students would not ask too many questions, make
mistakes or express their ideas. Thus, students would remain silent unless a teacher asked them a

35
question. Also, the teacher would exercise considerable authority over their students, which not
only impeded their interactions but also their learning. As a consequence, Confucian inspired
education system, students became passive recipients rather than active seekers of knowledge in
the Confucian education system. (Ho et al., 2002)
Seo and Koro-Ljunberg (2005) completed a study to understand the learning experiences
of Korean graduate students in the United States. The researchers conducted semi-structured
interviews with five Korean graduate school students, who were selected using a purposeful
sampling procedure. Participants were 30 years of age and older, and had 2 years of work
experiences before they started a graduate program. Following the interviews, the researchers
used peer reviews and member checking procedures to increase the validity of their interview
data. Findings of this study suggested that students had a hard time communicating their ideas
and thoughts with professors and other peers. These findings are consistent with the fact that
social and educational systems in Korea are greatly influenced by Confucianism. Study
participants explained to the researchers that for long have the Korean people believed that
achievement in education is the most important factor for success in society (Seo & Koro-
Ljunberg, 2005).
Lee and Carrasquillo (2006) conducted a study to identify the perceptions of American
professors regarding their Korean college students. The researchers distributed questionnaires to
and conducted interviews with 25 American college professors and 19 Korean liberal arts college
students in the United States. The researchers examined cultural differences of the East and West
by focusing on the academic environment. The findings indicated that Korean students respected
and showed absolute obedience to their teachers, following the Confucian philosophy. The
researcher supported this idea by introducing the Korean phrase “Gun Sa Bu Il Che” (“King,

36
teachers, and father are one body”). This phrase reveals how teachers were highly respected in
the academic environment in Korea. Such hierarchical education system often made it difficult
for Korean students to communicate with their American professors. This is consistent with
Confucianism principles, which suggests that students in Korea are taught to remain silent or
discouraged them from posing questions or talking back to their teachers. These values were in
stark contrast with the American education system, which encouraged students to ask questions
and engage in class discussions (Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006).
Aside from learning styles and philosophies, some scholars have examined the factors
that may contribute to students’ academic success across cultures. Kim and Park (2006), for
example, examined the factors that contribute to the academic success in Korean students in a
series of studies. An empirical study consisted of 730 Korean students was conducted in 1997 to
explore their perceptions of success and failure in their achievements. A follow up study was
conducted in 2011 with 481 student participants to identify the relationship between attribution
and their academic achievement. Finally, a 6-year longitudinal study was conducted to examine
the factors that influenced the academic success in Korean students. The results showed that
Koreans viewed education to be the most important goal in their lives. They did not believe in an
innate ability; they believed effort, discipline and persistence to be the means to achieve their
goals. Thus, Korean students attributed their success to effort not to the lack of ability. Koreans
also regarded parental support played an important role in their children’s academic
achievements. They were willing to sacrifice their time and money to invest in their children
academics. Emotional support in the form of encouragement, praise, security and understanding
was also valued by Koreans. Since Korean students felt they felt a sense of indebtedness toward

37
their parents for all their sacrifices, support and devotion, parental expectation and pressure
positively impacted their academic achievements. (Kim & Park, 2006)
Kim (2007) conducted a study to examine difficulties in doctoral advising encountered by
international students who were guided by American professors. The participants were eight
Korean doctoral students, who were at the ABD (All But Dissertation) stage in a large
Midwestern public university. The researcher conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews
with the participants to gauge their advising experiences and to understand the barriers between
students and professors. The findings revealed that language and cultural background created
discrepancies between Korean students and their advisors. As in other studies (Tweed &
Lehman, 2002; Ho et al, 2002; Seo & Koro-Ljunberg, 2005; Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006), Korean
students experienced a communication gap with their teachers. Korean students also felt
confused when their American advisors expected them to be independent and make decisions on
their own, as they were accustomed to Korean advisors, who gave them specific directions of
what to do and how to do things. Perhaps because Korean students came from a culture
embedded in uncertainty avoidance, this is what made students passive. Students also reported
being afraid to express themselves and make mistakes in front of their advisors (Kim, 2007).
Choi (2013) conducted a study to identify East Asian international students’ attitudes
toward their music programs in the United States. The participants were 92 international students
from Korea, China, Taiwan and Japan, who were majoring in music including performance,
composition, conducting, or music education, with a majority being graduate students. The
researcher distributed the East Asian International Music Student Inventory (EAIMSI) to these
students using an online survey. The instrument was developed based on the research questions
and had three parts: 1) 53 questions regarding perceived factors for influencing the program

38
choice, academic success, and program satisfaction level; 2) two open-ended questions for
identifying the greatest challenges and solutions for those challenges; and 3) 13 demographic
questions and 5 open-ended questions that asked for background information. Results from this
study indicated that the professor’s reputation, scholarships and the program’s reputations were
perceived as the most influential factors for choosing a music program. A good relationship with
professors, good feedback from the professors and emotional stability revealed to be the most
influential factors impacting their academic success. Lastly, a professor’s teaching and expertise,
and improvement of music skills were perceived as important factors for program satisfaction. In
sum, this study reinforced the idea that the professor was a determining factor for East Asian
international students to choose which programs to attend and later on, their academic
satisfaction (Choi, 2013).
Interestingly, no studies to date have contrasted the experiences of South Korean and
North American music students regarding their perceptions of self-efficacy. Based on the
aforementioned studies on self-efficacy and cross-cultural studies, this study will examine how
perceptions of musical self-efficacy were affected by different culture and learning experiences.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, studies on Albert Bandura’s Theory of Self-Efficacy, Self-Efficacy and
Academic Achievement, Self-Efficacy and Musical Achievement, Cultural Differences, and
Teaching and Learning Styles in South Korea and United States were reviewed. These studies
suggest that self-efficacy is a powerful source that can positively impact on one’s performance.
As revealed in studies on music and other subjects (e.g., mathematics), a person with higher self-
efficacy will make more effort, engage with more challenging tasks, and persist longer when
facing difficulties compared to their peers with low self-efficacy. Thus, the former will have a

39
higher chance of achieving their goals. Two studies that offer criticisms of Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory are also discussed.
In addition to understanding research on self-efficacy, including in music education,
research on cultural differences was also reviewed. Geert Hofstede’s (1980) initial four cultural
dimensions (i.e., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism and
masculinity versus femininity) helped to understand the different cultural values embedded in
both countries. Based on this theory, South Korea is described as a country with large power
distance, low individualism, strong uncertainty avoidance and femininity culture. South Koreans
usually believe that there is an inequality in society, and they value social integration more than
him or herself. South Koreans are also believed to avoid uncertainty and expect different social
roles for men and women. By contrast, the United State is depicted as a country with small
power distance, high individualism, weak uncertainty avoidance and masculine culture.
Americans tend to view society as offering equal opportunities, valuing individual interests.
They also tend to take more risks, and there is usually less distinction in social roles between
men and women.
Finally, studies on different teaching and learning styles in South Korea and the United
States were reviewed based on the Socratic and Confucian philosophies of learning. South Korea
is greatly influenced by Confucian philosophy that emphasize the effort and respect. South
Korean students are known to work hard and are obedient to their teachers to success in school.
However, there is a clear hierarchy between teacher and students, as well as a communication
between gap. The United States is influenced by a Socratic philosophy, that stresses inquiry.
American students are encouraged to ask questions and to discuss with their teachers. They feel
comfortable with their teachers, and build proximal relationships with their teachers.

40
Chapter Three: Methodology

This study employed a qualitative approach to interpret the perceptions of South Korean
and American graduate students through an examination of their lived experiences (Creswell,
2013). As mentioned earlier, previous research on self-efficacy in music has been based mainly
on quantitative methods. Information on the meaning associated with one’s musical self-efficacy
is lacking. For this reason, a more detailed understanding of musical self-efficacy is needed,
through listening to voices than have not been heard. In this study, I investigate musical self-
efficacy to understand how it is influenced by specific people, situations, events, and how it is
shaped under the different cultures (See Maxwell, 2013).
The chapter begins with a brief definition of the qualitative research approach, followed
by a description of the case study and ethical considerations. Next, I describe the pilot study,
research setting and recruitment strategies, study participants, data collection and data analysis.
The Qualitative Approach
Qualitative method is a complex approach that identifies many factors involved in a
problem or issue (Creswell, 2013). Rather than placing an emphasis on a statistical relationship
among factors, qualitative research approaches a problem or issue in a more a holistic view. The
qualitative method is often defined as an “interpretive approach” or “naturalistic approach” that
enables the researcher to investigate in more detail the meaning of people’s beliefs. It also has
“the ability to transform the world” (p. 44) because it allows the researcher to explore the hidden
voice of people (Creswell, 2013). A qualitative study provides a complex picture of a problem or
issue that has multiple perspectives.

41
Creswell (2013) suggested that there are several common characteristics in qualitative
studies. To begin with, the researchers can present their background or experience in the study to
let the readers to know what makes them to be interested in this study. There is also flexibility in
terms of the research design; researchers may change the initial plan after they enter the sites or
begin to collect the data. The qualitative method is also conducted in a natural setting.
Researchers visit the site where participants to study the research problem and talk to participants
and observe their behaviors. The researcher’s role is significant in qualitative method. Also, in
qualitative studies, researchers use multiple data sources such as interviews, observations and
documents. Researchers review all the data sources and organize it into categories. While
analyzing data, they focus on the meaning that participants hold in a specific problem or issue.
Researchers interpret the problem or issue through the multiple perspectives offering many
details about a problem or issue.
The Case Study
In terms of research designs, a case study is appropriate to answer research questions of
“how” and “why” (Yin, 2018). Often used when there are clear boundaries within cases, the case
study also seeks to provide an in-depth understanding of a unique case or of several cases.
Considering this, a case study was the most appropriate to answer the research questions of “how
do graduate students who study music performance in South Korea and the United States
describe their musical self-efficacy?”, “What are the similarities and differences in musical self-
efficacy between three groups of students, and what accounts for them?” and “In what ways,
does studying abroad alter the perceptions of musical self-efficacy in international students from
South Korea, who are studying in the United States?” Also, there were clear boundaries within

42
cases that were distinguished by different cultures and different case was uniquely studied and
then juxtaposed.
In a case study, there are two types of designs that can be determined by the size of the
case: Single case study and multiple case study (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018). The single case
study is appropriate when the case is used as a critical test for existing theory or the case
represents unusual or common circumstances. It is also used when the case is used as a
revelatory or longitudinal purpose. The multiple case study is used when the individual cases are
comparable to show different perspectives (Creswell, 2013). For the purpose of this research,
multiple case study was employed to examine the experiences of American, Korean and
international students. I was interested in revealing the similarities and differences in musical
self-efficacy in these three groups of participants.
Ethical Considerations
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of
Southern California (USC) in April of 2018 (See Appendix B). The rigorous review by the IRB
ensured that the study design was sound and that the rights of the participants were protected.
Pilot Study
In preparation for the main study, a pilot study was conducted to refine the design of the
study and gain a better understanding of musical self-efficacy of graduate students. After
receiving approval from the IRB, in April 2018, five volunteered participants were recruited for
the pilot study. They were: one American student, one Korean student and three international
students. Results from the pilot study revealed that international students had similar views on
their teaching and learning experiences in America that experienced as an international student.
This suggested that international study abroad experience alter student perceptions toward

43
musical self-efficacy. The pilot study revealed that a study on the similarities and differences of
musical self-efficacy from different cultures was worthwhile. Pilot study data also indicated that
the interview protocols must be recognized to draw more real answers from the participants.
Research Settings and Recruitment Strategies
Purposeful selection was used to show different perceptions of musical self-efficacy from
different cultures (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2013). This is a strategy that deliberately selects
particular settings, people and activities to attain best answers for research questions (Creswell,
2013). Maxwell (2013) suggested five goals for purposeful selection: 1) to achieve
representativeness; 2) to achieve maximum variation; 3) to deliberately select extreme cases to
test the theories; 4) to compare the differences between settings; and 5) to establish the most
productive relationship between the researcher and the participants (pp. 98-99). With this in
mind, the groups of participants in this study were recruited from the two schools, one in South
Korea and two groups in the the United States. To balance the participants in the three groups,
the following strategies were considered.
First, participants were expected to possess similar musical abilities. I recruited
participants who possessed extraordinary musical abilities, with the assumption that they might
have high musical self-efficacy. I wanted to share the voice of participants who expected to have
higher musical self-efficacy than average students, to offer insights to those who are not sure
about their musical abilities like myself. Thus, participants in this study were recruited from
reputable schools in both countries.
Second, participants were chosen from a university setting, not a conservatory. Since
most music schools in South Korea are a university setting, the schools selected in this study
were universities, so that participants would come from a similar setting. The rationale was that

44
if participants were chosen from a conservatory, where students were more focused on their
performances, their teaching and learning experience might differ from their counterparts in a
university setting. Thus, participants in this were recruited from a university setting in both
countries.
Study participants were recruited from the two schools, one in South Korea and the other
in the United States. The Korean participants were recruited from a large university located in
Seoul. The American and international students were recruited from a large university located in
California. Both schools are considered to be highly competitive for both academic ability and
musical ability in both countries. Thus, all students in this study have achieved excellence not
only in their performance, but also in academics. These schools were also chosen because of ease
access for the researcher.
Study participants.
Three groups of students took part in this study. The first group consisted of five
American students, who were born and raised in the United States. These students had learned
music only in the United States, had not studied abroad, and were not familiar with Korean
educational cultures. They were working on graduate degrees (masters or doctorate) in classical
music instruments (i.e., piano, string, wind and percussions) at the time of data collection. I
selected to study graduate students because many students in South Korea study abroad after
they graduate from the university. Therefore, all participating students in this study were
studying at the graduate level, as this would allow for similar expertise and learning experiences
to be matched and contrasted. The second group consisted of five Korean students, who were
born and raised in South Korea, and completed all their studies in that country. The last group
was composed by five international students, who had learned music in both South Korea and the

45
United States. They were selected from the same school as students in the first group. They held
bachelor of music degrees from South Korea and were pursuing their master’s or doctoral
degrees in the United States at the time of data collection. These international students must have
completed at least a year of learning experience at the current school to have enough learning
experiences in the United States. This would give them enough time to adjust to a new culture
and learning system, so that they could share the similarities and differences between the two
cultures that might impact on their musical self-efficacy after studying abroad experiences.
To recruit the participants, I contacted the applied music departments in both schools. I
sent emails explaining the purpose of study and a brief description of study. I was not able to get
any response from the school in South Korea, however, some departments in the school in the
United States sent me their student directory and I was able to send invitation emails to students.
Through this process, many participants in American and the international group were recruited.
I also made flyers to fill the remaining participants and advertised the study in school boards in
both schools. To recruit Korean students, I visited the department office at the school during a
trip to South Korea. I met the teaching assistants from each instrument department, and
explained the study to them. They sent the study description to the graduate students to
encourage participation. Even though teaching assistants were willing to help me to recruit the
participants, I only received a few responses. Thus, I had to use personal contact to recruit more
participants in South Korea. Although participant recruit process was not easy, I was able to
recruit five participants from each group, a total of fifteen participants for this study with the
assistance of many people from the two schools. Table 1 offers a description of each study
participant. Pseudonyms are used to protect the students’ identities.

46
Table 1
Background Information of Study Participants

Group Pseudonym Gender Instrument Degree Self-Efficacy
Level
(1-10 scale)
American Alex Male Percussion Masters 7
American Celine Female Piano Doctorate 7
American Rory Male Piano Masters 9
American Lucas Male Trombone Doctorate 10
American Mason Male Double Bass Doctorate 10
Korean Kyungeun Female Piano Masters 5
Korean Eunji Female Flute Masters 8
Korean Hyowon Female Violin Masters 7
Korean Sungjun Male Piano Masters 9
Korean Hyungchan Male Violin Masters 0
International Hyewon Female Viola Graduate
Certificate
8
International Jisoo Female Piano Doctorate 8
International Jungtae Male Clarinet Masters 8
International Dabin Female Violin Doctorate 8
International Sunmi Female Piano Doctorate 8

47
Data Collection
The primary data source used in this study was the semi-structured interview. This type
of interview allowed the researcher to have a list of the interview questions that needed to be
covered in the interview and also provided some flexibility in “how” and “when” those questions
were asked based on the interviewee’s response (Edward & Holland, 2013, p. 29). The interview
included questions on background information of study participants, seven questions based on
Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy, and three additional questions for international students,
regarding their study abroad experiences (See Appendix A). It took over approximately 5 months
to complete the data collection beginning in May, 2018. After I received the approval letter from
the IRB, I visited South Korea and collected data with the second group first. I met all Korean
participants at their school, and conducted individual interviews with them. The interviews with
American and international students were conducted in the same manner as with the Korean
students. Interviews with American students were conducted in English, and interviews with
Korean and international students were conducted in the Korean language. All interviews were
conducted in-person at a quiet place like a library, the cafe or the student lounge. During the
interviews, I took notes on participants’ appearance, nuances, and facial expressions. Each
interview took an average of 30 minutes and was audio-recorded. Following the interviews, the
data was transcribed immediately to write memos on my thoughts, reflections and insights
(Maxwell, 2013). These memos captured my analytic thinking about the interview data, helping
to further explain the findings at a later time.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, I carefully read the interview transcripts and listened to the audio-
files of the data many times. I began with “open coding” to identify meaningful codes that

48
emerged from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I highlighted the words and expressions that
were interesting, significant and unique, to further develop them into coding categories. During
this process, the words and expressions that were mentioned in Korean and international students
were analyzed in the original language first, to minimize the potential risks implicit in the
translation process (Nes et al., 2010). Later, only selected quotations were translated into English
by the researcher, who is a native speaker of Korean and fluent in English, with careful
consideration for linguistic expressions. Through “open coding” strategy, I gathered 117
meaningful codes. Some of them were overlapping with other codes, thus they were merged
together. Finally, I was able to organize the data into 19 categories. To help further the analysis,
these categories were rearranged into overarching themes and unique themes. I looked for
patterns that were commonly presented in three groups of students. I went back and forth
between the data and finally arrived at seven overarching themes. I also searched for unique
themes that revealed in each group. I compared the data and categories, and six unique themes
emerged from three groups.
Data Validation
This dissertation was validated with three procedures: peer review, member checking and
external audits (Creswell, 2013). Since the purpose of qualitative study is to understand the
detailed meaning of study participants, some researchers like Wolcott (1990a) warned that
validation might distract readers to capture the essence of what the researcher originally sought
in the study. For this reason, Wolcott suggested validation should be understood in a broader
perspective in qualitative study (as cited in Creswell, 2013, p. 247). Based on this suggestion, the
data validation was focused on establishing reliability in research procedures and authenticity of
analyses.

49
I asked two colleagues, who were familiar with qualitative approaches, to check the
research procedures of this dissertation. They carefully read a draft of the dissertation and
offered feedback about methods, meanings and interpretations (Creswell, 2013). I also confirmed
the credibility of the findings and interpretations by consulting with all study participants. They
were invited to examine preliminary analyses and to see if it was consistent with their opinions.
In addition to peer review and member checking, three music education professors at USC
examined the research process, findings and their interpretations that were supported by the data.
These professors worked as external audits; they had no connections with this study (Creswell,
2013).
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I presented the research methodology used in this dissertation. A
qualitative, multiple-case study was utilized to understanding the meanings associated with
graduate students’ musical self-efficacy. To hear student voices, one-on-one, in-depth interviews
with 15 participants were conducted in two countries, South Korea and the United States. The
research procedures, findings and analyses of the data were validated through peer review,
member checking and external audits.

50
Chapter Four: Findings

To address the research questions: 1) How do graduate students who study music
performance in South Korea and the United States describe their musical self-efficacy?; 2) What
are the similarities and differences in musical self-efficacy between these three groups of
students, and what accounts for them?; and 3) In what ways, does studying abroad alter the
perceptions of musical self-efficacy in international students from South Korea, who are
studying in the United States? This chapter documents the findings that emerged from interviews
with three groups of participants: American, Korean and international students. The collected
data were carefully coded into seven overarching themes: previous musical experience,
deliberate practice, pedagogical relationships, musicality versus technicality, goal setting, peer
relationships, and influences of higher education. These were represented in all three groups. In
addition to these overarching themes, six unique subthemes emerged within each of the groups
of participants: frames of mind, self-confidence, depression, self-deprecation, independence, and
self-criticism. These are depicted in Figure 1:

51

Figure 1. Representation of emergent themes and subthemes

Previous musical experience. Previous musical experiences played an important role in
participants’ musical self-efficacy. Participants judged their capabilities on a given task based on
their previous experiences. If they achieved their previous goals, they gained confidence and
learned the “know-hows” of practice strategy or performance skills. They were also motivated to
Overarching Themes
1) Previous musical experience
2) Deliberate practice
3) Pedagogical relationships
4) Technique vs. musicality
5) Goal setting
6) Peer relationships
7) Influences of higher education
Korean
Students
1) Self-
deprecation
2) Depression
International
Students
1) Independence
2) Self-criticism
American
Students
1) Frame of
mind
2) Self-
confidence

52
work harder to make better achievements. Thus, their musical self-efficacy became higher with
accumulated successful achievements.
According to the American students, previous accomplishments raised the confidence in
their musical abilities. Sometimes, their fears or lack of confidence were viewed as impediments
to their goals, making them insecure in their abilities even if they had practiced hard. However,
their previous successful accomplishments reminded them of their abilities, and also assured
them for future possible successes. Recognizing their accomplishments validated their abilities
when they felt nervous. Celine shared her experience of remembering about past experiences:

I force myself to look at past experiences. So I looked back on when I felt like 2
and I looked at the results and the results were fine. I thought I was not gonna
make it and I actually did okay. So, when I looked at that, it’s like...okay. It
doesn't’ match how I felt with the result. I see different feel from the result, you
know? (Celine)

Like Celine, another American student, Rory mentioned that he was not sure about his abilities
for some time. However, after he had received a full scholarship when he applied for a doctorate,
he became more confident in himself and in his abilities.

Once performance gets better, you know, it shouldn’t be perfect, it just gets better
than the last one. I was like “good job, Rory. It’s better.” you know…I didn’t feel
confident about myself until I got a full scholarship here [current school], like a
year and a half ago. (Rory)

Similarly, Korean students were also motivated by their previous successful experiences
in performance. Once they received good results, they tried to work even harder to achieve their
next goal because they wanted to keep producing the same results. Eunji mentioned:

53
Luckily, I started playing the flute earlier than others and the flute was the right
instrument for me considering my aptitude. Thus, I had been able to produce
positive results without the ups and downs. So, I set goals that would help me to
pursue this route. (Eunji)

Another Korean student, Hyowon mentioned that previous successful experiences gave her a
sense of achievement. Even though her previous outcomes were not as anticipated, she was able
to perform better once she had achieved her goal.

I started to play the violin later than others, so I failed every competition I went
to. The results were not good. Also, I was less motivated after each failure. So,
when I prepared for competitions, it was like forcibly dragging a cow. However,
once I won a competition, I got better and better with each competition.
(Hyowon)

Hyowon reported passing an audition for her college entrance exam as her first achievement. For
many Korean students, the college entrance exam is considered to be the most important audition
of their lives. Thus, Korean applicants feel a great sense of achievement when they get accepted
by the school of their choice. The success of entering a college instills a strong belief in students’
musical abilities, even if they had a lower level of musical self-efficacy.

Definitely, my belief in musical ability got stronger after I entered college. This is
because the college entrance exam is such a big exam for us. Even if I did well in
high school, I was anxious about the college entrance exam. But after I got in, I
tried to do something that was really challenging because I could afford to make
mistakes. Failures can be used as foundations. (Hyowon)

International students believed that their previous successful experiences had a positive
impact on their performances. Successful experiences made them more confident on stage; they

54
learned the “know-hows” from these successful experiences, becoming more capable to produce
even better results. Jisoo and Sunmi explained:

When I was young, I just practiced randomly. I did not know how to prepare, but
now, I know how to do it from previous experiences. I did this and this thing and
if it worked, I would do it again. From those experiences, I learned the know-
hows. (Jisoo)

When I was in high school and in the earlier years of college, I was not able to
enjoy my performances because I did not have much stage experience. Thus, I
was seized with the thoughts that I had to finish this as soon as possible. I
compared myself with other friends and I read the faces of my teacher to see if it
was okay or not. (Sunmi)

Thus, previous musical experiences not only motivated participants to work harder to
achieve better performance outcomes, but also assured them to have strong beliefs in their
musical abilities.
Deliberate practice. All participants in this study commonly mentioned the importance of
deliberate practice. Hours of instrumental practice prepared them to perfect their technique. If
they felt technically ready, they became comfortable with playing. Also, if they practiced, they
would be less nervous during their performances because they would not be bothered by small
technical mistakes. In addition to technical readiness, deliberate practice also prepared them to
have clear understandings of their musical pieces. If they were clear about their interpretations
on their musical pieces, they would be able to fully immerse themselves in their performances.
Deliberate practice is a fundamental element for musicians to have successful music
performances, thus it was highly valued by participants in this study who were developing their
musical self-efficacy.

55
According to participants from the American group, the amount of instrumental practice
directly correlates with mental readiness. These students reported that if they spent a great
amount of time practicing, they would be mentally prepared. The more they practiced, the more
confident they became and consequently, the more they felt comfortable performing. Thus, hours
of practice would provide some mental fortitude. Alex and Celine commented on the important
role of practicing on their music performances.

Practicing a lot just to make sure like that there is no way that I am going to play
it or there is no way that I play incorrectly (Alex).

. . . Definitely my preparation plays a role in how nervous I get cause I feel very
prepared and confident when I have a lot of you know...hours of practice, it gives
me little bit more a mental strength. (Celine)

Similar to their American counterparts, Korean students also perceived deliberate
practice to be correlated proportionately with their musical ability. As suggested by the
American participants, if they practiced enough, they felt more comfortable. However, if they
did not practice enough, they felt they ill-prepared and anxious. Hyowon and Hyungchan
provided reasons for why they practiced hard.

You know, there is a saying that “your effort will never betray you.” I believe this
and thus I try to do my best at all times. Then, I know my preparation will never
betray me. (Hyowon)

I was always concerned with the actual amount of time I practice. Of course,
concentration is the basics. For instance, if I practice 10 hours a day, I might feel
like I might be able to achieve my goal or I might feel confident. But, if I don’t
practice as much, I feel anxious. As such, I try to practice at least more than the
previous amount to surpass my previous goal. (Hyungchan)

56
Likewise, international students also mentioned that they believed deliberate practice to
be correlated with the success of their performances. As their Korean and American
counterparts, international students saw that deliberate practice prepared them to become
confident on their music pieces, making them less nervous during their performances. This also
led them to have successful performances. Jungtae and Sunmi had similar views toward the
importance of deliberate practice in relation to their self-efficacy:

I also practiced a lot. I felt more comfortable and I became more confident. That’s
why I practiced hard. When I felt that I practiced a lot, and I felt prepared, I
became confident and I would be less nervous on stage. (Jungtae)

I think everything is dependent on preparation. There is nothing more. If I well
prepared, I am not as nervous. I want to show the audience how beautiful the
music is. I want to show the audience that I am able to do this and how much I
prepared. But, if I am not well prepared, I want to end this [performance] as soon
as possible only focusing on the technicalities. Preparation is everything. (Sunmi)

All participants in this study considered deliberate practice to be a significant
element on developing musical self-efficacy. The more they practiced, the more
confident they became. The confidence from deliberate practice would result in
successful performance outcomes, thus participants might have a strong belief toward
their musical capabilities.
Pedagogical relationships. Participants in this study believed that the relationship with
their teachers or professors had a significant impact on their musical self-efficacy. Some students
were encouraged by their teachers’ praise or positive comments, persuading themselves that they
were good musicians. They also became confident on their musical capabilities based on their

57
teachers’ judgements. However, teacher’s negative comments also discouraged some students
and this even led some of them to have depression.
Pedagogical relationships between students and teachers were described differently in
each group. For instance, American students felt closer to their teachers than Korean students.
American students did not see their teachers as an authoritative figure or as a “dictator” and
appeared to be more comfortable with their teachers. Most American students were allowed to
address their teachers on a first-name basis, instead of using titles like “professor” or “doctor”.
This also allowed them to have a closer bond to their teachers. Lucas who played the trombone
reported being told by his professor to, “just call me by my first name.” He added, “... my
trombone professor is more like a grandfather to us rather than a teacher.” By addressing them
by their first name, American students felt less of a barrier with their teachers. This was contrary
to the Korean students, who were not allowed to address their professors by their first names.
American students were also able to share their personal lives with their teachers. One
student learned that sharing his personal experiences with his professor played an important role
in his learning process. Student and professor shared beers together after performances, talked
about school life, summer plans, etc. According to Mason, this helped improve his learning since
he was able to receive emotional support from his professor. In his own words:

My undergrad teacher was a great teacher and he would be more involved in
students’ personal lives. I think that would be the most cultural shock based on
what you have told me about Korean teachers. Because, he viewed studying
music as a holistic thing. Definitely, I’ve had teachers who would be more like a
family.” (Mason)

58
Emotional support was viewed as a form of encouragement for students to practice and play
more music. Even if they received negative comments, they were not discouraged because of the
trust that developed between themselves and their teachers.
On the contrary, most Korean students described their teachers as “cold, rigid, and
difficult” (Hyowon, Sungjun, Hyungchan). Compared to American students, there was a barrier
between the teacher and Korean students. For Korean students, teachers were not their friends,
rather they were someone whom they looked up to. Hyowon described her teacher as “a very
respectful person; someone I cannot feel close with.” Hyungchan also stated, “my teacher is cold
but whatever she does, it is always perfect.”
However, there were a few students for whom a barrier was not prevalent in their
relationships with instrumental teachers. Interestingly, these teachers were either foreigners or
had studied abroad for a long time. In this case, students felt closer with their teachers and also
had a good deal of respect for them. However, they often felt it difficult to develop a close
relationship with their teachers despite their foreign styles of teaching. Sungjun described why he
was not able to close with his teacher.

Although, my teacher lived in America for most of his life before coming to
Korea, it was difficult to get close to him. Even something as simple as asking a
question was difficult. It was nearly impossible because of the rigid and strict
culture between teacher and student that is rooted in the culture. Even though, he
wanted to foster a close relationship, it wasn’t easy because I was accustomed to
the Korean culture. (Sungjun)

Similar to American students, many international students built close relationships with
their teachers after studying in the United States. They felt close to their teachers and were able

59
to approach them more easily because they were friendly. Jungtae who had a strict teacher when
he was studying in South Korea mentioned:

I like being here [in America] because my teacher is like a friend. We joke with
each other and I feel comfortable with him (Jungtae).

Like Jungtae, many international participants described their American and Korean teachers in
completely different ways. Unlike their American professors, Korean professors were often
perceived as being very distant. The international students mentioned that they experienced a
clear hierarchy between the professors and themselves when they were in Korea. Their Korean
professors were perceived as strict. As seen in the quote presented earlier, some international
students even felt frightened to ask questions because their professors’ words were to be
considered “the truth” or “the right way.” They had to accept and follow these words even if they
did not completely agree with them. In contrast, international students were able to ask and share
their ideas with their American teachers even if the former conflicted with their own ideas. Jisoo
shared her experiences with her American teacher and Korean teacher.

When my teacher [in America] gave me a negative comment, it frustrated me. Of
course, I was negatively affected by the comment, but I also tried to figure out,
“What does he want me to do?” or “How do I do this?” His negative comments
were more of a guide. But, when I was in Korea, I accepted my teacher’s
comments 100% without any questions. (Jisoo)

According to Jungtae, Korean students were taught to show respect to their teachers ever
since they were young. “We call our teachers ‘sunsaengnim.’” These students were taught to
stress the word -nim at the end, which is an honorific title. This means that there is a high respect
for teacher in the word itself. Such hierarchy often distanced students from their teachers. Some

60
students even mentioned feeling scared of their teachers, which negatively affected their
learning. Sunmi explained her experience with a Korean teacher, whom she felt scared.

I would never choose a “scary” teacher again. Having a scary teacher makes me
feel nervous and less confident. It adversely affects my ability and inhibits my
potential. Even if the teacher were a world class pianist, I wouldn’t want such a
[Korean] teacher. (Sunmi)

In sum, reports from participants in the study suggested that close relationship with their
teachers or professors not only encouraged them, but also made them feel confident about their
musical abilities. Close relationship with their teachers also facilitated their music learning.
Thus, pedagogical relationships had a strong impact on students’ musical self-efficacy.
Technique vs. musicality. Participants in this study judged their musical abilities based on
different priorities. When American students were asked to rate their musical self-efficacy, they
related this to their technical ability. They were confident when their technical ability reached an
advanced level. This was clearly seen in Celine’s quotation, “I struggle more with my technical
ability. I am actually pretty confident with my musical ability.” During the interview, she further
mentioned why she was more concerned with her technical ability than with her musicality.

As you know, there is no recording that is not perfect. So, we have to not only be
technically perfect, then we have to have our musical ability that has to
be…(hesitance) I think we always have to fight that pressure to perform perfectly.
(Celine)

Rory also shared the similar response,

61
It’s just technical. I think it [musicality]’s always been at a high level, cause
professors and teachers since I was young always say “Oh, you are very musical.”
It’s just technical ability that hasn’t reached there. (Rory)

However, when Korean students were asked the same question, none of them
judged their musical self-efficacy based on their technical ability. They were concerned
more with their musicality, including musical interpretations, producing a sound that
could be distinguishable from those of others, or how much they could be fully immersed
in their performances when on stage. Hyungchan offered:

My goal last year was to create my own sound that anyone could distinguish. I
wanted to make it clearer. (Hyungchan)

According to Korean students, they were not allowed to make any mistakes in their
performances since their youth; even young students were taught to be capable of
brilliant techniques. Therefore, it was too natural for them to have a perfect technique.
This was evident in the interview with Sunmi from the international group, “In Korea, if
a student makes even the slightest technical error in an audition, the student would fail.”
Similarly to Korean students, international students also judged their musical
abilities based on their musicality rather than technical ability. These international
students were also taught to develop perfect techniques ever since they were young, thus
they did not seem to worry about it, being more concerned with their musicality. Jisoo
offered:

I think that technique problems will resolve themselves with practice in due time,
thus I keep practicing until the performance. Now, I think more about musical
interpretation such as how I can express the composer’s intention or how I can

62
interpret this musical idea and express it from my perspective in front of an
audience. I focus on these when I prepare. (Jisoo)

Likewise, Sunmi shared a similar response:

I tried to focus on something that I can only do. I always concerned with
something that I can play differently, so the judges or the audience could feel
there is a different spice to my music even when I am playing the same piece as
the other pianists. . . I try to be more creative in my musical interpretation and my
confidence comes from there. I think to myself, ‘No one could play like this.’
(Sunmi)

As shown in the interview data, study participants had a different standard when
they judged their musical abilities. American students tended to be more focused on
developing creativity and musicality, whereas both Korean and International students to
be technically perfect like “a machine.”
Goal setting. Participants in this study had different views on goal setting:
challenging goal versus feasible goals. To be more specific, American students were
willing to take a challenging goal and were not scared of receiving negative results. For
them, a challenging goal would make them work harder to achieve their goals. Also, they
believed that they could at least learn or improve something by taking on a challenging
goal. Lucas explained why he set a challenging goal for himself.

I always try to set a challenging goal cause that’s the only way to be good. I think
that the only time when it is comfortable is when it is something like a day job or,
like, if it is comfortable like a church gig. If I do something comfortable, then I’m
not gonna improve. (Lucas)

Alex similarly stated:

63

If there is, like, a harder way to do something, I wanna try to do it. Or, if there are
multiple ways to do something, just try to do all of them. I feel like pushing
myself beyond the stage is how you get better. So, learning all of that for, like, a
recital music, just try to do something that is little more beyond your level at least,
you are learning and improving in some way even if you don’t like the piece or
something at least technically, it is more than...yeah, I try to set a challenging
goal. (Alex)

On the contrary, most Korean students set feasible goals. They believed that a
realistic goal would bring them more opportunities to achieve their goals. The more goals
they accomplished, the more they felt a sense of achievement. The latter became a
vehicle for them to try more challenging goals. Korean students also believed that this
would also increase their musical self-efficacy, thus they tried to build upon smaller,
more feasible goals. This appeared to be in opposition of American students, who
described setting more challenging goals. Kyungeun shared:

After I entered the university, I realized that I had set a challenging goal that was
beyond my ability. So, upon this realization, I changed my goals to ones that were
more obtainable. Then, it was obvious that I was more likely to achieve my goals
than before. (Kyungeun)

Kyungeun further mentioned why she set feasible goals. Since she did not have any
experience studying abroad, she considered herself limited in her choices and believed
that she needed to try even smaller goals to advance her career:

In regards to setting a goal, I try to do take every opportunity that is given to me.
If something is posted, I try to do it. As you know, since I am in Korea, my
options are limited compared to those who studied abroad. Additionally, the
musical field is relatively small compared to the number of musical talent. So, if I
don’t take even the small opportunities, there would be nothing. This might also

64
be true for students in other countries. But, I feel constricted since I am in Korea.
So, this forces me to look for any opportunity and to try them. In order to achieve
a challenging goal, I try to do even small auditions or recitals in hopes I can go on
to bigger auditions. (Kyungeun)

Likewise, international students were hesitant to set challenging goals, being more
similar to Korean students than to their American counterparts. It seems that the older
they had become, the more they feared failure. While some international students who set
challenging goals considered failures as stepping stones for further learning, other
students reported not wanting to experience failure anymore, as they got older. Instead,
they tried to set goals that were achievable. Dabin, who had been studying abroad for
more than 10 years said:

When I was young, I always thought, “Let’s try!” I didn’t care whether the results
were good or bad. When the opportunity came, I tried everything without much
hesitation. But now, I think twice before trying anything challenging. (Dabin)

To summarize, participants in this study were clearly divided by different goal
settings. American students were willing to take a challenging goal, because they were
not afraid of experiencing failures. By contrast, Korean and international students try to
set a feasible goal because they were more susceptible to negative outcomes.
Peer relationships. Peer relationships were frequently presented by participants in
this study in regards to their musical self-efficacy. As they became older, they did not
compare their musical abilities with their peers. Rather, they judged their musical abilities
based on themselves. Thus, peers were considered as sources of support and/or partners
rather than as competitors.

65
According to American students, peers were viewed as people who could
challenge them to perform better. Sometimes, they learned from their peers by observing
them play. Other times, they received objective comments from their peers. They did not
compare themselves with their peers in a negative way, because they were viewed as
supporters of their learning. Alex, for example, mentioned that being exposed to good
peers helped him improve his playing:

I never tried like compare in a sense that one is better or worse. Like if my teacher
talks to me “play this quieter” and I am just thinking about that and I noticed this
person playing very quiet. Then, I observed that. Being exposed all of that, I
would definitely think my peers pushed me a lot harder. (Alex)

He also mentioned how his peers challenged him to work even harder.

For me, I think peers...they pushed me a lot more and knowing that they were
more experienced in general...I know they have done and played with many more
groups than I had. Just knowing that for me is a push to try to get to a similar
stage, hopefully in a similar time. (Alex)

Celine also described her peers as supportive:

Sometimes, yes. I think we always do [compare] it with maybe friends we know
or we trust. We are always worst critics for ourselves and then you know...I play
for my pianist friend and it doesn’t sound as bad to them. Because I am only
thinking everything might wrong. But they might see more balanced, more
objective view instead of seeing what needs to be fixed or seeing what didn’t
work. And they are saying, “oh, this was good.” And again, “These things you
need to work on.” They seemed to be more better and objective picture and I think
it is really important to have you know people you trust, play for and talk with.
That’s what I think important in studio class. You prepared for your colleagues
and provide supportive environment rather than competitive one. (Celine)

66
American students further mentioned the reasons why they did not compare their
musical abilities with their peers. Alex and Rory stated:

It’s weird they usually choose to compare peers who are closer to their age. I feel
like that kind of limits them pushing beyond (laughing). Yeah, but I just try not to.
(Alex)

Sometimes, I was comparing and trying to sound like [some] other person and I
wasn’t even thinking about the music. The music became a medium through
which I can compete. But it was no longer music. It was just a competition.
(Rory)

Like their American counterparts, Korean students did not compare their musical
abilities with those of their peers; they judged their musical abilities based on their own
standards. As they got older, however, they reported focusing more on their own
achievements. Hyungchan offered a similar response to that of Alex and Rory:

I think [that] comparing myself with others is somewhat stupid. Of course, I
sometimes think if other are people performing as a certain level, then I have to
reach that level as well. But I don’t set my goals based on other people. I don’t
judge my musical ability based on others. I think personal accomplishment is
more important. (Hyungchan)

Interestingly, some Korean students believed that comparing themselves with others could be a
good source of motivation for them to keep working hard. They did not judge their musical
abilities based on other people, but referred to how others were working so as not to fall behind.
Kyungeun explained:

I think “my way” [not thinking about others] is the most ideal. However,
realistically speaking, I have to compare myself with others. So, I try to compare

67
with others in a good way. For instance, in terms of studying abroad, I have many
friends who are studying abroad. If I compare myself with them, thinking
“everyone is studying abroad but if I am the only one staying in Korea, I might be
fall behind.” But if I keep thinking that, I would have a lower view of myself. So I
rather think I will do the best with what is given to me in Korea, and try to get the
best results. (Kyungeun)

After studying abroad, some international students tended not to compare their
musical abilities with those of their peers. According to them, when they were younger,
they judged their musical ability based on their peers. However, being in a supportive
learning environment, as in the American education system, changed their views of peers
as co-learners. Peers became viewed as sources of support rather than as competitors.
Hyewon from the international group offered:

I am myself and they are themselves. If they are good at something, I do not
compare myself to them, rather I would try to learn from them. I would inquire.
“How did you do that? Or would you listen to my part?” and ask them I could
improve the sound. (Hyewon)

Since they had been playing instruments for so long, and held broader views of music,
international students were more confident about being good musicians. This belief in
themselves was another reason as to why they did not compare themselves with their
peers. Sunmi commented:

When I was young, I compared myself with my friends. But now, I have more
experience as I am older, so I can just simply enjoy being on stage. Because I
believe I am a good pianist, I think the only difference between others and myself
is the musical interpretation. It’s just a difference in taste. So, If I can interpret
some phrases that others cannot, that gives me confidence. (Sunmi)

68
Only one student, Dabin mentioned comparing her musical ability with others. This
student was older than the others, and she had a more conservative view of music
learning.

I know I should not compare myself with other people. But I can’t help it because
I have to get a job and I also hear the about how others are doing. . . (Dabin)

As participants in this study matured, they became more concerned with their own
musical achievements. Their views toward their peers were also changed as they did not
compare their musical abilities with them.
Influences of higher education. Participants in this study commonly mentioned
that their musical self-efficacy was changed after they entered higher education.
However, they experienced changes in their levels of musical self-efficacy in a different
period. For instance, American students reported that their levels of musical self-efficacy
were raised after they started graduate school. For American students, graduate school
was perceived as a time when they became more serious about music and also more
confident in their musical abilities. As they saw developments and growth in their
technique and musicality and as they performed more, they became more serious about
music. They perceived a stark contrast in their musical self-efficacy between their
undergraduate and graduate studies. Alex offered:

It was weird that one thing in my undergrad studio is mostly undergrads. There
were just one master’s student and there were mostly just undergrads. Since I
came here, it’s opposite. It’s all graduate students actually, so it was a big flop to
see that. And most of my undergrad, no one really cared about anything about
ensembles or learning. I don’t know why they were music majors kind of thing,
they just showed up and got by and just hung out and partied. But here...

69
Everyone is serious and determined, focused. So, that flips worked well for me
and I was able to kind of latch on to them. (Alex)

For American students, undergraduate programs did not appear to mean much. They
regarded this time as a period to develop their technique as they were not “very serious”
about music. However, the interviewees mentioned that they went through a transition
period after they started their graduate programs. They regarded this period as the time
when they began learning music earnestly.

I think [that] when we were younger, studying with teachers especially high
school, undergraduate and even some in graduate schools, I think we looked to
our teachers to tell us that information. And then I think, you know, hopefully in
graduate schools, we have to transition to being able to discern it for ourselves. I
think that’s a difficult transformation, right? And you really have to know
yourself and you have to know technically master your instrument, too. So, you
will become more independent and you able to make the decisions on yourself.
(Celine)

Different from American students, who appeared to have become more serious
about their music studies in graduate school, Korean students who took part in this study
described becoming more serious about their musical studies after they entered the
undergraduate program. Some students became more confident after they achieved their
goal of entering the university program of their dreams. As mentioned earlier, such
achievement was important for them, as seen in the words of Hyowon:

After I got into university, I wasn’t disappointed by failures because I had
achieved my highest goal which was entering university. (Hyowon)

70
Similarly, Eunji also mentioned that her beliefs became stronger after she got into
university.

I learned the joy of playing music after I entered the university. Before I entered
the university, I played music to pass the college entrance exam or competitions.
But after I got into university, I played music because I loved it and I wanted to.
(Eunji)

As in the interviews with Korean students’, international students also felt that
their beliefs toward their musical ability had changed after they entered the university.
Since they did not have many performance experiences and their musical ideas were still
being developed, they were uncertain about their musical ability when they were young.
For this reason, these international students had to rely solely on their teachers’
comments. Higher education provided more performance experiences for them and it was
the time that students began to view music as their profession, thus they were able to
develop their own identities of musician, which were not as strongly affected by their
teachers’ comments. Jisoo explained this process:

At first when I entered university, I did not know much about music, thus I had to
rely on my teachers. I just followed my teacher’s directions. So, when my teacher
said “it’s good,” then I believed that I was doing well. But comparing myself now
to the past, I lacked understanding since I did not have many stage experiences. I
was not sure about my musical ability before. (Jisoo)

Sunmi shared a similar response:

When I was in high school and in the beginning of university, I was not able to
enjoy my performances because it was difficult. At that time, I focused on I
finishing this [performance]. And I compared my performances with others. I

71
cared so much about my teacher’s comments. But, now I have more experiences
and as I am older, so I am able to enjoy my performances. (Sunmi)

As participants matured and they had more performance experiences, their level
of musical self-efficacy also increased. However, the interview data indicated that the
changes in their musical self-efficacy appeared to be influenced by different periods.
Specifically, depending on the period when participants became serious about music (i.e.,
undergraduate or graduate program), they perceived there was a change to their musical
self-efficacy.
As shown above, the interview data revealed seven overarching themes that were
common to all three groups of participants. Some of these themes such as previous
musical experience, deliberate practice and peer relationships) were perceived similarly
by all participants. The remainder (i.e., pedagogical relationships, technique vs.
musicality, goal setting, influences of higher education) were commonly mentioned by all
three groups, but described from different viewpoints. Table 2 summarizes these different
and similar views in all groups.

72
Table 2

Similarities and Differences between the Three Groups

American

Korean International
Similarities
Previous musical experience

Deliberate practice

Peer relationships

Pedagogical
relationships

Close

Distant

Close
Technique vs.
musicality

Technique

Musicality

Musicality
Goal setting

Challenging

Obtainable

Obtainable
Higher
Education
Stronger after
graduate
program
Stronger after
undergraduate
program
Stronger after
undergraduate
program

An additional six subthemes emerged in unique ways for each group: frames of
mind, self-confidence, self-deprecation, depression, independence, and self-criticism.
These are discussed ahead.
Frames of mind. Most American students believed that the success of their
performances relied heavily on their mental state, and were interested in learning how to
manage their mindsets. These students were always under the pressure to perform
perfectly, therefore, as musicians, they were always on the edge. Also, they had a high

73
standard to be good performers. For this reason, they often felt nervous and insecure
when performing for auditions, rehearsals and performances. Celine shared:

I am very interested in psychology and I definitely believe the power of positive
thinking. Because if you believe something, you will kind of make it become true.
So if you go into a performance and it starts to seem to fail or think you know you
can’t do it, then it probably not go well. So, you have to believe in yourself that
you are capable of doing it. The way you did it by yourself in practice room and
you have to believe in it. Otherwise, you are gonna create the worst possible
scenario that you are imagining. So, I think you can imagine the result you want
and you actually have the experience in the preparation, then it does impact on a
performance. And the more older I get, the more I study and the more I perform,
and the more I realized is how much of it is mental. I mean, of course we did
these years when we were young, but now it’s really mental thing so much of it.
Even if you have the confidence and you have some experiences, something that
distracts you or you missed something that you never missed before, then that
surprises you. I think that’s the challenge. (Celine)

Likewise, interests in the development of the mind were commonly seen in the
American group. Through online resources like YouTube and Ted Talks, students could
easily access helpful lectures about music and the mind. By watching lectures online,
they learned how to control their nervousness and were able have different views of the
issues that were of concern to them. They also learned to how to control their nerves and
channel their anxiety into excitement for performances. Rory shared:

Another thing that was a big source, life changer for me was this Ted Talk. I
forgot the name of the woman who gave it, but it was about power poses. Power
poses are positions that you do before go out on stage. So, typically people had a
backstage with their music and their bodies are really small and their breathing
shallow and they do these things that make them more anxious before they go on
stage. So, power poses aware you stand up and you stretch your body out and you
take up a lot of body space. Or you sit really big and talk very loud. The research
shows people doing power poses for two minutes, it would change the levels of
hormones in your body. So, after two minutes of doing this and smiling, your
testosterone goes up by 20% and your cortisol which is stress hormone, your

74
cortisol goes down. So it won’t fix everything, but you will still get nervous but
combination of power poses and stating out loud “I’m nervous” rather than hiding
it, rather than be like a bad secret, I would say like “Oh my gosh, I am so
nervous” just say that loud and the more I shared it with people around me, the
more I felt like I was regaining control of my body. (Rory)

Since American students believed the success of their performances were highly
influenced by their minds, they were also interested to learn how to control them. They
also learned how to control their nerves on stages from their teachers, who offered
suggestions on how to relax the body and how to focus on music during their
performances.
Self-confidence. Interestingly, most American students seemed to be overly
confident about their musical abilities when compared to their Korean and international
counterparts. When asked to rate their musical self-efficacy on a 10-point scale, the
average score of American students was 8.6. Most American students rated their musical
self-efficacy with at least a 7, and two students even gave themselves a 10. Given the fact
that neither Korean nor international students rated themselves a 10, the responses from
these students were intriguing. One of student who gave himself a perfect score said:

It’s just technical. I think my musical ability has always been at a high level,
cause professors and teachers since I was young always said “Oh, you are very
musical.” It’s just technical ability hasn’t reached there but I am saying 10 now
because I feel technical ability in my instrument and my conducting is now
reaching good level of that. (Lucas)

Similarly, another student who also gave himself a 10 stated:

75
. . . Having confidence in your preparation and confidence in your ability to
perform to best your ability, I would give myself for 10. And that’s what I am
always aiming for and I have been achieving most of the time. (Mason)

It was also interesting to hear from Korean and international students that they thought
American students tended to be overconfident about their abilities. Dabin shared her
opinions about American students regarding this topic:

I have seen many American students evaluate their performances as good even if
they failed the audition. I think they are too positive. (Dabin)

Although international students including Dabin considered their American peers to be
overconfident about their musical abilities, they sometimes admired their confidence and
positive attitude.
Self-deprecation. Contrary to American students, who were confident about their
abilities, Korean students deliberately made themselves believe that they were not good
at what they were doing. In their minds, if they believed they were good, there was no
development in their performances, thus, they tried to be modest. These were well
described in Kyungeun and Hyowon’s interviews.

Even if I get a good result, I think I should not be satisfied with it. If I am satisfied
with it, I think I will not develop anymore and I might fall behind. For this reason,
I think I should not be satisfied with the result even if I make it. (Kyungeun)

I try to disregard positive comments because thinking about them will not help me
to develop. I think that it will only make me stagnant. So, instead, I try to remind
myself of the negative comments or something I lack. (Hyowon)

76
Because they kept underestimating their abilities, these students also had lower levels of
musical self-efficacy, suggesting that they were not sure about their musical abilities.
Hyungchan mentioned:

I always think I should set a higher standard because that motivates me reach for
that standard. I don’t think I am as forgiving of myself when evaluating my
performance ability. (Hyungchan)

Also, many Korean students regarded studying abroad as one of their “spec,” or
qualification. This word was derived from an English word “specification.” In Korea,
many students believe that studying abroad will make them stand and help to secure a
better job. For this reason, many students study abroad after they graduate. Perhaps
because the participating Korean students had not had the opportunity to study abroad,
they underestimated their musical ability when compared to their peers who had studied
or were studying abroad. Kyungeun said:

Since I have only studied in Korea, I always felt unsatisfied even if my teachers or
friends told me I did well in a performance or even if I got good results. If I were
to study abroad, there would be more people who might be superior to me. So, I
am always concerned with the fact that if I were to move to a bigger field, I might
not be satisfied with my ability. (Kyungeun)

While American students believed in their capabilities to perform due to their
practices, Korean students tried to underestimate their abilities during practice in order to
force themselves to practice even harder.

77
When practicing, I always say I am not good and I evaluate myself very lowly. At
one point, I practiced with a strong belief that I was good. But I found there was
little or no development in my performance. (Kyungeun)

. . . If someone asked me if I did my best in the competition with a simple, “Yes”
or “No,” I dare not say I did my best. (Hyungchan)

As indicated in the interview data with Korean students, they tended to estimate their
musical abilities lower and work harder. Korean students became more strict on their
performances and were not as satisfied as their American counterparts.
Depression. As many Korean students became serious about music in
undergraduate program, they became more realistic, forcing themselves to achieve more.
For this reason, many Korean students reported that they felt depressed and experienced
some kind of “slump” when they were undergraduates. The interviews indicated that
male students, in particular, experienced depression. Sungjun shared:

I was concerned a lot about being on stage. I was in a big slump when I was a
freshman and a junior. Playing the piano became obscure. It was a kind of stage
fright. I felt like I could not do anything and I wasn’t even able to touch the keys
of a piano that I used to play every day. (Sungjun)

Another male student, Hyungchan also reported to be undergoing depression during the
interview. After he consecutively experienced unsuccessful results, his teacher did not
allow him to participate in competitions. Although he did his best when preparing for the
competition, he felt really depressed about his results.

At that time when I prepared for the competition, I really practiced hard. I felt like
I couldn’t practice any harder. I practiced even harder than I had for the college
exam, but I failed. And my teacher made me stop participating in competitions.

78
My teacher was not a kind of person who would stop me from participating in
competitions. So that was really shocking. After that, I felt too frightened to play
the violin. I felt scared even to take out my instrument. I couldn’t even take the
responsibility of the results from the competition. I have never rested because I
needed to practice. But right now, I don’t have the will or courage. Also, as you
know, there are so many good students in this school. They are practicing hard
and they are making progress but I feel I can’t do anything. I am participating in
this interview while my character has been changing. I have to get out of this
situation as soon as possible. (Hyungchan)

Compared to American students, it seemed that Korean students experienced
more depression. This was likely due to the enormous pressure that they received from
parents and teachers to make achievements since they were in the undergraduate
program. Also, this was probably influenced by their culture, which stressed the
excellence in education for one to obtain success in society.
Independence. After studying abroad in the United States, international students
commonly mentioned that they were able to develop their own musical interpretations.
They regarded this as the largest difference in their learning experiences between the two
countries. They reported that their teachers in the United States did not teach them every
detail, but rather made the students cultivate their own musical interpretations. Jungtae
shared his learning experience in the United States:

My clarinet teacher here [in the United States] always stressed the foundations of
the clarinet and at the same time, he always explained that I needed to develop my
own style of music like the unique sound that only I could have. He also said I
need to interpret music by myself because he couldn’t express what I was
thinking about music. (Jungtae)

Similarly, Dabin mentioned that she felt that the American educational system stressed
more critical thinking, being different from South Korea. When she was taking lessons in

79
the United States, she was asked many questions from her teachers regarding “Why?”
and “How?” Dabin and Sunmi shared their learning experiences with American teachers:

I think that in the United States, teachers did not answer the question rather they
made us discover the answer by ourselves. And also they asked a lot of “why?”
questions. I think they like to make us think. (Dabin)

The teacher that I met in high school in Korea made the students do what she
directed. At that time, I was too young to develop my own interpretations, but I
was not able to develop my creativity because of my teacher who pushed me a lot.
After I got into university, I met my teacher who studied in America and used to
be a professor in America. That teacher allowed me to do what I wanted to do. So,
the teacher waited for me to realize something and to be able to do something by
myself. When I was not able to resolve the problem, then my teacher helped me.
So, there was no objurgation. That made me to try something new and I think that
motivated me to develop my own style. (Sunmi)

Sunmi said that when she was in South Korea, she was made to imitate her teacher’s
musical interpretations. But in the United States, she felt that the teachers helped her to
develop her own musical interpretations.

When I was in Korea, I imitated my teacher’s musical ideas. But my teacher in
America did not suggest anything until I asked. (Sunmi)

Likewise, Korean international students reported that they were not able to develop their
own musical ideas when they learned music in Korea, because they were made to follow their
teachers’ directions. However, they were able to cultivate their own musical interpretations after
they study abroad in the United States.
Self-criticism. Although international students were humble to describe their musical
abilities like their Korean counterparts, they did not estimate of their musical abilities low. In

80
their minds, even if they had strong beliefs toward their musical abilities, the results from
competitions or auditions were not always positive. For this reason, they seemed to be more
modest rather than confident about their musical abilities, unlike the interviewed American
students. Dabin mentioned:

I think for musicians, there is a moment that they believe they might not always
do well. That’s because there is an absolute answer in music but at the same time
there isn’t. Even if I did well on something, some people might not like it. For
instance, I might be able to show 100% of my musical ability in a competition or
audition, but I might fail. Considering that, I cannot always expect that I can
achieve it or I can get good results. (Dabin)

Dabin was building a successful career as a musician. She achieved many international
competitions and she already worked as a professor at college while completing her doctoral
degree. Although she might be confident about herself, she humbly expressed herself during the
interview. “People have different standards. But I am not a person who is always happy about
my performance. I am not always satisfied with my performance.” Like her, another international
student, Sunmi offered:

I had a strong belief in my ability. However, I can’t always trust my ability
because performances are not always successful even for a good pianist. I used to
have that belief but I think that made me complacent. (Sunmi)

I don’t think Korean people actively come forward unless they are made to do so,
because we believe modesty is a virtue. (Sunmi)

Chapter Summary

The findings of this study revealed some similarities and differences between three
groups: American, Korean and international. All participants regarded how their previous

81
successful musical experience had a significant impact on their beliefs toward their capabilities
of music performances. They also emphasized the significance of their practice as highly related
to success of their performances. In addition, they viewed their peers as a co-learner or a partner
whom they could learn from each other.
However, participants in this study also held some different views regarding musical self-
efficacy. Both American and international students felt comfortable with their teachers in the
United States, whereas Korean students experienced difficulties with their teachers in South
Korea. These students also held different standards when they judged their musical abilities.
American students felt confident when they saw the developments on their technique. By
contrast, both Korean and international students judged their musical self-efficacy based on their
musicality, that were distinguishable from other musicians. They also had a different view on
goal setting. While American students tended to set a challenging goal, their Korean and
international counterparts tried to set an obtainable goal rather than a challenging goal. These
differences were influenced by different culture and learning experiences.

82
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined how perceptions of musical self-efficacy were affected by different
cultures and learning experiences. Graduate students from South Korea and the United States
participated in this study, which explored their perceptions of musical self-efficacy. International
students from South Korea studying in the United States also participated in the study to
determine whether their musical self-efficacy differed from that of their peers in South Korea
due to their experiences studying abroad. In this chapter, I offer discussion of findings and their
connections to the literature, returning to the research questions, implications for music teaching
and learning, recommendations for future study and conclusion.
Discussion of Findings and their Relationships to the Literature
The voices of 15 students that were investigated in this study indicated that their
perceptions of musical self-efficacy were affected by culture and learning experiences. What
these findings suggest is that Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory would need to be modified to
be applied to contexts other than Western countries. Although the findings from this study
concur with the idea that mastery experiences are the strongest influence on musical self-
efficacy, some different meanings also emerged in the Korean context. For example, students
with higher self-efficacy might choose an obtainable goal, rather than a challenging one, as in the
case of the Korean students who were interviewed in this study. According to Bandura, students
with higher self-efficacy are willing to take a challenging goal, because they are not afraid of
failures (Bandura, 1997). However, this might be different for Korean students, who were raised
in a culture with a strong uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2002). Even though Korean students
may have a strong belief in their musical abilities, they may set obtainable goals because they
fear the feeling of uncertainty. As seen through the interview data, setting an obtainable goal was

83
viewed to increase the chances of a successful outcome for several Korean students. Also these
participants were more motivated when there was a higher chance of success, believing that
setting an obtainable goal would increase their musical self-efficacy. This suggests that students
might have different views on goal setting due to their cultural heritage.
Another interesting finding that challenges Bandura’s theory was the notion that students
with lower self-efficacy exerted more effort in music practice compared to their peers with
higher self-efficacy. This was opposite from Bandura’s assertion that students who are confident
in their capabilities exert more effort to produce desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997). The
interview data with Korean students suggested that some of them who reported to have lower
musical self-efficacy worked equally hard like their American counterparts. Although they were
less confident when compared to American students, they reported exerting a great amount of
effort when they prepared. This is well depicted in a popular saying in Korea, “4 hours of sleep
and pass, 5 hours of sleep and fail.” (Ho et al, 2002) Likewise, since Korean students were raised
in a Confucian culture, where effort is an important attribute to their success, they would work
hard even if they were not confident in their musical capabilities (Watkins, 2000). Also, Korean
students did not believe in innate ability, thus the reason for their failures often stemmed from a
lack of effort and not lack of ability. As a result, they often have strong beliefs that effort,
discipline and persistence are the means to achieve a desired result (Kim & Park, 2006).
In addition, some students with higher performance abilities may underrate their musical
self-efficacy. This concurred with Hewitt’ study (2015) that some gifted female students
underrated their performance abilities. According to Bandura, repetitive successful experience
increased the level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). However, as shown in Hewitt’s study
(2015), the interview with Korean and international students indicated that they were more

84
critical when evaluating themselves, even if they had many previous achievements. This might
perhaps because they were taught to be modest since they were young. Even if they performed
well, their satisfaction levels were reported to be lower than that of their American counterparts.
This, in turn, might have lowered their view of musical self-efficacy. By contrast, international
students in this study described American students were overconfident and egotistical (Liberman,
1994). Not only they did not fear making mistakes, they were also satisfied with their
performances even if they did not achieve their desired outcomes. Thus, this might have
influence them to have a higher musical self-efficacy compared to their Korean counterparts.
The findings of this study showed some different views with other literatures as well.
Participants in this study perceived practice time as a significant determinant of their music
performances. They reported that hours of practice would prepare them technical readiness as
well as musical interpretation. Thus, the more they practiced, the more comfortable they became
with their music pieces. Hours of practice also gave them mental fortitude, thus led them to have
successful performances. For this reason, practice time was considered importantly by all study
participants in this study. However, Ritchie and Williamon’s (2012) study showed that length of
practice time was not a significant predictor of students’ performance qualities. Furthermore, the
accumulation of practice time over the students’ musical life time did not show any impact on
their performance qualities. Only self-efficacy for performing revealed the direct relationship to
their performance qualities.
Another point that was different from other studies was lower levels of musical self-
efficacy in males. Male-Korean students in this study showed a lower level of musical self-
efficacy compared to that of female-Korean students. They were more susceptible to their
failures compared to their female counterparts, perhaps because they were under enormous

85
pressure to succeed in educationally and professionally. This is highly related to one’s status in
Korean society (Kim, 2015). Given that many individuals in South Korea still believe that men
are supposed to be breadwinners, male students might receive more pressure to succeed when
compared to female students. For this reason, they are more likely to have received enormous
pressure to succeed in school very early in, which might have threatened their mental health.
Two male students in this study, Sungjun and Hyungchan, reported that they experienced
depression during their graduate programs. This is probably different from other cultures, where
individuality is considered more important, like in Nielsen’s (2004) study with 130 Norwegian
first-year students, male students were more likely to have a higher self-efficacy than their
female peers.
Returning to the Research Questions
Question One. How do graduate students who study music performance in South Korea
and the United States describe their musical self-efficacy?
In general, all students who took part in this study rated their levels of musical self-
efficacy high. Except some of Korean participants, Kyungeun and Hyungchan, who tended to
show fairly low musical self-efficacy, other study participants in this study seemed to have a
strong belief in their musical abilities and regarded themselves as a good musician. This revealed
American students’ musical self-efficacy was higher than Korean students as expected.
Within the qualitative interview, one question gauged students’ level of musical self-
efficacy. This question was created to see if there was a drastic difference in perceptions of
musical self-efficacy by American and Korean students. Study participants were asked to rate
their beliefs in their abilities of music performance when they set a goal such as jury, audition, or
competitions. Using a 10-point scale from 0 (“Cannot do”) to 10 (“Certain can do”), they were

86
asked to rate their musical self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). The average score for all 15
participants was 7.4. On a more specific note, American students’ average score was 8.6,
followed by international students score of 8 and Korean students of 5.8. Although the number of
participants was small, there was a clear gap between American and Korean students on their
perceptions of their musical self-efficacy. In addition, while two American students rated their
musical self-efficacy as 10, none of the Korean and international students did this. As mentioned
earlier, one of the Korean students even rated his musical self-efficacy as 0. This further
illustrates the difference in musical self-efficacy from three groups.
Interestingly, international students showed a stronger belief toward their musical
abilities compared to that of Korean students. Although none of them rated their musical self-
efficacy as 10 like American students, their musical self-efficacy was much higher than Korean
students. This suggests that different culture and learning experiences might have affected their
perceptions of their musical self-efficacy.
Question Two. What are the similarities and differences in musical self-efficacy between
these three groups of students, and what accounts for them?
Findings from this study showed that there were some similarities and differences
between the three groups. Participants in all three groups reported that their previous successful
experience had a significant impact on their musical self-efficacy. Their previous successful
experience was a great motivation for them to work harder so as not to lose their sense of
achievements. They learned the “know-hows” of successful practice strategies from those
experiences, thus they could produce better outcomes. If something did not work well, they
would work to make them better. Participants’ previous achievements also validated their

87
abilities, thus participants gained confidence from remembering those achievements. As such,
previous successful experience was highly valued by all the participants in this study.
Also, participants in all three groups believed that the amount of practice significantly
influenced their musical self-efficacy. Hours of practice not only provided technical readiness,
but also strengthened mental fortitude. The more they practiced, the more comfortable they felt
with their performances. They also became more confident with hours of practice. However, if
they did not practice enough, the more nervous they became. This anxiousness also lowered their
beliefs in their capabilities, thus negatively affected their performances. For this reason, all the
students in this study regarded amount of practice as an important factor that influenced their
musical self-efficacy.
Another similarity mentioned by all the participants in this study was the role of peer
relationships. Interestingly, study participants viewed peers as co-learners from whom they could
learn. They shared musical ideas with their peers and learned from watching each other’s
performances. In addition, study participants were motivated to work hard from watching their
peers, and felt a sense of kinship by watching them working hard. Therefore, peers were
regarded as a partner for them rather than a competitor.
Differences in musical self-efficacy between the three groups also emerged. In terms of
pedagogical relationships, American students reported that they felt comfortable with their
teachers. They described their teachers like family or friends with whom they felt close with.
Most American students addressed their teachers by their first name, which, in turn allowed them
to feel closer to them. These close relationships offered opportunities for students to share their
personal lives with their teachers. By doing so, they received emotional support from their
teachers, which in turn allowed them practice and play more music. By contrast, Korean students

88
felt their teachers to be almost unapproachable. Teachers were perceived as an authority figure,
students found it difficult to communicate with them. Therefore, Korean students rarely shared
their musical ideas with their teachers. Some students were negatively affected by their teachers’
comments, which might have resulted in a lower musical self-efficacy.
Participants from all three groups judged their musical self-efficacy based on different
standards. When asked to rate their musical self-efficacy, American students rated themselves
based on technical ability, whereas both Korean students and international students based their
musical self-efficacy on musicality. Since American students were encouraged to develop their
own ideas and creativity at a young age, technique was perhaps less emphasized when compared
to their musicality. The reverse occurred for Korean and international students, who were taught
to be “technically perfect” from very early on; making mistakes was not allowed when
performing. Consequently, these students focused on the development of technique first with less
emphasis on developing musicality. These different learning foci likely caused these students to
have different standards when they evaluate their musical self-efficacy.
In regards to setting goal, American students reported that they were willing to take on
challenging goals. They believed that setting a challenging goal was more beneficial for their
learning because it would make them work harder to achieve their goals. Even if they failed, they
believed that they would learn something from their failures. However, both Korean and
international students had different views when setting a goal. They preferred to work on
obtainable goals given their beliefs that challenging goals included more risks of failures, which
would lower their musical self-efficacy. These students believed that setting an obtainable goal
would result in a more positive outcome, thus enhancing their musical self-efficacy. For this
reason, they showed a tendency to set an obtainable goal rather than a challenging one.

89
Participants in this study also showed different views in regards to higher education.
American students believed that their musical self-efficacy increased after they graduated from
university. Graduate school was for them a time when they became more serious about their
music study. Also, they judged their musical self-efficacy based on their technical ability, thus
they saw more improvements in graduate school compared to when they were undergraduates.
By contrast, most Korean students felt that their musical self-efficacy was lowered after they
were accepted to university. These students reported a more objective view of their musical
abilities by meeting more peers and teachers in school. They also reported feeling more pressure
to perform better when compared to their high school year, which cause them to have less
confidence on their musical abilities. Such confidence got worse as they got older. Although
some Korean students mentioned that their musical self-efficacy reached its peak after they were
accepted to the school of their choosing, given the prestige associated with college entrance
exams in Korea. Similarly, international students also considered their undergraduate year as a
time of transition in their musical self-efficacy. Getting older and gaining more performance
experience during their undergraduate years allowed these students to have a higher musical self-
efficacy compared to the time when they were in high school.
Compared to Korean and international students, American students were more confident
about their musical abilities. As shown in the result of measuring their self-efficacy question,
they showed much higher results compared to both Korean and international students (as seen in
question 1). Compared to American students, Korean students had lower estimates of their
musical abilities. Rather than being confident about their musical abilities, they tried to be
modest since they believed that having confidence lead to stagnation. Also, some of them
believed that they would be less competitive when compared to students who had studied abroad.

90
Thus, this resulted in a lower musical self-efficacy in their views. Although international
students’ musical self-efficacy was much higher than that of Korean students, they still described
themselves humbly. Similar to Korean students, they were not overconfident of their abilities.
Question Three. In what ways does studying abroad alter the perception of musical self-
efficacy for international students from South Korea who are studying at an American
university?
The findings of this study confirmed that international students’ musical self-efficacy
differed from that of students residing in South Korea. Different culture and learning styles
seemed to positively impact their musical self-efficacy. Therefore, international students rated
themselves higher on levels of musical self-efficacy when compared to students who had studied
music performance only in South Korea. In order to understand the cultural differences that
impacted on international students’ musical self-efficacy, it is important to return Hofstede’s
“Dimensions of Culture” theory (1980) and to “Confucianism” philosophy.
Findings of this study resonated with what was shown in Hofstede’s “Cultural
Differences of Teaching and Learning” study (1986). In this study, Hofstede compared the
different teaching and learning styles based on his initial four dimensions of cultural differences
(i.e., power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity
versus femininity). In Hofstede’s “Dimensions of Culture” theory (1980), South Korea was
described as a country with large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance, feminine, and
collectivist country (Kim, 2015). On a related note, many international students in this study
commonly mentioned that the greatest learning difference between South Korea and the United
States was developing independence. Before they studied in the United States, these students
were raised in a country with large power distance, where the teacher had more authority over

91
them. These students were taught in teacher-centered learning environment and they expected
their teachers to initiate their learning (Hofstede, 1986). Their Korean teachers instructed them
with the details of “what to do” and “how to do,” and the students were followed to their
teachers’ directions. Also, the teachers’ words were held as “truths” for these students; they were
taught to imitate their teachers’ musical interpretations without any questioning. Thus, they
became passive in their learning, relying mainly on their teachers when they were in South
Korea.
However, after they moved to the United States, a country with small power distance,
these students experienced the opposite learning system; a student-centered learning environment
(Hofstede, 1986). Their American teachers did not teach them every detail, but provided
suggestions when they were asked. These teachers also asked many thought-provoking
questions, making their international students engage in critical thinking. Through this process,
American teachers helped international students to find the answers by themselves and to
develop their own musical interpretations. Thus, international students became more independent
after they studied abroad in the United States.
Also, international students commonly mentioned that they were able to develop a close
relationship with their American teachers. When they were in South Korea, they felt distant with
their Korean teachers, because they were raised in large power distance country (Hofstede,
1986). These students felt a clear hierarchy between their teachers and themselves, describing
their teachers in South Korea as “rigid” and “scary.” They felt that there was a considerable
amount of authority from their teachers, and were obedient to them. For this reason, some
international students found it difficult to communicate with their Korean teachers. This

92
authoritarian relationship between the teacher and students impeded their interactions, and hence
their learning.
However, after they moved to the United States, where there is small power distance,
international students felt that there was less hierarchy between their American teachers and
themselves. Although they still showed a high degree of respect towards their American
teachers, these students felt more comfortable with their teachers, who treated their students like
a friend. These students felt that they were also respected by their teachers, who valued their
musical ideas. Since these students felt comfortable with their American teachers, there were
more learning interactions, thus resulting in more positive outcomes. For this reason, some
international students expressed that they preferred to study in American university, where they
felt comfortable with their teachers.
In addition, international students became more confident about their musical abilities
after studying in the United States. When they were in South Korea, where there is strong
uncertainty avoidance, students were more reliant on their teachers, with whom they could get
validation about their musical abilities (Hofstede, 1986). Since these students were growing up in
a culture that avoids uncertainty, it is possible that they might have felt more secure when they
received validation from their teachers, whom they could trust. Thus, comments and feedbacks
from teachers were significant for these students when they were in South Korea.
But after they moved to the United States, where there is less uncertainty avoidance,
international students became less reliant on their teachers, and likely more confident about their
musical abilities (Hofstede, 1986). In the United States, where different opinions are welcomed,
international students became more confident about trying something new. They also became

93
less worried about expressing their musical ideas, and gained confidence when they were able to
do something that could be distinguishable by others.
Another factor that might be affected on international students’ self-efficacy was the
experience of studying abroad. International students who took part in this study were raised in
collectivist culture, where academic achievement is considered a means to gain prestige in
society (Hofstede, 1986). Thus, earning a diploma certificate in the United States would give
them more opportunities in the future. For instance, as seen in the interview with Korean student
Kyungeun, many students in South Korea regarded studying abroad as a “spec,” which made
them more attractive in the job market than students, who only studied music performance in
South Korea. Especially if they wanted to apply for a job in higher education job, studying
abroad was considered to be mandatory. Another possible reason that explains the importance of
studying abroad is the fact that it is almost impossible to find a professor, who only studied
music performance in South Korea. For this reason, many students in South Korea study abroad
in the United States or in European countries following graduation. Since international students
in this study had been studying abroad for at least one year, they likely viewed themselves as
more qualified than students who only studied music performance in South Korea. This might
explain why their musical self-efficacy was raised after studying abroad.
Aside from the correspondences between international students’ perceptions toward their
musical self-efficacy in this study and Hofstede’s “Cultural Differences of Teaching and
Learning” study (1986), some connections between their responses and Confucianism
philosophy were also evident and are discussed ahead.
As mentioned earlier, Korean students and international students in this study were taught
to be technically perfect since young. This might have been inspired by Confucianism, which

94
emphasizes the goal of learning is to master essential skills (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). This
might also explain the emphasis of Korean teachers, who teach their students to be more focused
on their techniques, rather than their musicality. Confucianism also stressed the acquisition of
correct knowledge, which could explain the difficulty international students had to develop their
creativity and their own musical interpretations. However, after international students studied in
the United States where the Socratic philosophy is more dominant, they became more interested
in developing their own musical interpretations rather than techniques. Since Socratic philosophy
stressed the inquiry by asking students deeper questions to learn the knowledge, international
students were more engaged in critical thinking and they were able to make decisions on their
own (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). When international students first met their American teachers,
they had a difficult time adjusting to a new teaching style that was different from what they had
learned from their Korean teachers. However, they became more independent and confident after
studying in an American university.
Confucianism also urges students to show a high degree of respect for their teachers.
International students in this study were made to be obedient to their teachers when they were in
South Korea. In class, they were taught to be remain silent unless they were asked to speak and
they were not allowed to talk back to their teachers (Lee & Carrasquillo, 2006). For this reason,
some international students found it difficult to communicate with their teachers in South Korea.
This authoritarian relationship between the teacher and students likely impeded their interactions,
and hence their learning. Also, and as noted earlier, some international students in this study
were scared of their Korean teachers, describing their American teachers as more friendly and
more approachable, and less distant. Emotional supports in the form of encouragement, praise,

95
and understanding from American teachers further encouraged international students, making
them play more music, thus producing more positive outcomes.
Implications for Music Teaching and Learning
This study has many implications for music teaching and learning. The voices from the
students in this study are valuable since they account for positive influences of higher musical
self-efficacy. Likewise, findings from this study also help to explain the negative influences that
impacted students with lower levels of musical self-efficacy. Such data is useful for music
educators, who can learn what is needed to help young musicians achieve their goals. In the next
section, I offer implication of the present study through four main areas: performance
experiences, supportive environments, constructive criticism, and mental preparedness.
Performance experiences. In order to increase students’ beliefs in their musical abilities,
students must have many experiences to perform. The more they perform, the more comfortable
they become with being on stage. If students feel comfortable, they can be fully immersed in
their performances, resulting in positive outcomes. That is, students gain confidence in their
musical abilities through accumulated successful performance experiences. Also, students can
learn lessons from both successful and unsuccessful performance experiences. Students learn the
“know-hows” from successful experiences and also learn how to improve from unsuccessful
experiences. Teachers should, therefore, encourage their students to participate in as many
performance experiences as possible.
Supportive environments. Pedagogical relationships and peer relationships are
important in the development of students’ musical self-efficacy. Students learn music by
observing their role models, peers and teachers (Bandura, 1997). They learn from the
performances of peers and teachers, share musical ideas and also ask for opinions from those

96
who have a more objective view. Instead of creating a competitive environment, it is important
for teachers to create an environment of mutual learning, where students can learn from each
other. This could be created through mock auditions, or studio classes where students prepare
pieces and perform for each other. Also, teachers should consider their students to be on equal
level in terms of a shared mutual interest (Liberman, 1994). Teachers should respect their
students in the same way that their students respect them, and also appreciate them as musicians.
Rather than controlling their authority over their students, teachers should acknowledge that they
can also learn from them. As revealed by Richie and Williamon (2011), students’ prior music
lesson experience was a strong predictor of students’ self-efficacy. Thus, building a good
pedagogical relationship is important for students to learn music.
Constructive criticism and encouragement. Verbal persuasion including judgements
and feedback from other people significantly impacts students’ musical self-efficacy (Bandura,
1997). Some students are encouraged by the positive feedback that they received from others,
who they considered to be important in their lives (Martin, 2012). For instance, emotional
support from family members or teachers can make students work harder and play more music,
potentially reinforcing beliefs in their abilities (Choi, 2013; Hendricks & Smith, 2018.) Likewise,
some students may be discouraged by negative comments (Martin, 2012), especially, younger
students who are often more sensitive to feedbacks. Therefore, teachers should encourage and
offer positive feedback for their students, as their discouraging comments might lower their
musical self-efficacy (Martin, 2012). When teachers provide comments or offer feedback,
positive or negative, this should be done in a constructive way, with students’ musical self-
efficacy in mind. As seen in the interviews, some international students did not always believe in
their American teacher’s positive comments because they were not used to praise. Interestingly,

97
some American students echoed this sentiment, arguing that Americans love to “sugarcoat;”
always saying good things to others. Perhaps for this reason, teachers’ encouragement or positive
comments sometimes did not work. Likewise, when teachers provide negative comments to their
students, they should always supplement them with reasons. Without such reasons, students can
get discouraged and may even become depressed. If students understand the reasons behind the
negative comments, they are possibly less prone to become disparaged. In addition, they will be
more likely to make improvements and fix problems.
Mental preparedness. Many musicians have experienced nervousness and anxiety when
performing in front of other people, which, in turn might impact their performances- positively
and negatively. Even if they practice hard, such students cannot perform well if they lose control
of their emotional or physiological state when on stage. For this reason, the physiological state of
musicians is considered to be a significant component of a successful performance. If they are
capable of controlling their nerves, they can engage in their performance. Otherwise, they cannot
produce a successful outcome. Teachers need to help students develop mechanisms to cope with
performance stress anxiety.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study involved participants who were pursuing graduate degrees. These individuals
had more performance experiences compared to younger students (i.e., school aged students,
undergraduate students). Given that musical self-efficacy generally increased over the time
(Hendricks, 2014; Hendricks & Smith, 2018), it would be interested to examine self-efficacy in
undergraduate students. Many study participants mentioned that they relied more on their
teachers when they were younger, being more susceptible to their negative comments. They also
reported being more sensitive of their musical outcomes. For this reason, they were easily

98
discouraged by undesirable outcomes. It would be important for future research to investigate
perceptions of musical self-efficacy in undergraduate students including those who might have
less performance experiences. Future studies could also attempt to track the development of self-
efficacy through longitudinal designs.
This study centered on instrumentalists who majored in piano, string, wind or
percussions. Since self-efficacy is domain specific (Bandura, 1997), if the participants were
recruited from other music majors such as composition, voice or conducting different
perceptions toward their musical self-efficacy might have resulted. For instance, students who
majored in voice cannot practice longer like other instrumentalists who can practice 8-10 hours a
day. Since they are using their body, there is a limit to the amount they can practice so as not to
lose their voice. Thus, the amount of practice which was shown to be a great influence on one’s
musical self-efficacy in this study might not apply for voice students. Also, this study focused
students’ performance experiences, if the participants were composition students who have less
performance experiences, their perceptions toward their musical self-efficacy might differ. Thus,
future studies with different music major students would produce different perceptions toward
their musical self-efficacy.
Conclusion
One’s musical self-efficacy is constructed by many different sources of information.
Although Bandura (1977) suggested self-efficacy is constructed based on one or more sources of
information (i.e., enactive mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal/social persuasion,
physiological/emotional state), the findings of this study confirmed that both deliberate practice
and cultural influence also played important roles in establishing one’s musical self-efficacy. As
self-efficacy deals with personal capability (Bandura, 1997), deliberate practice is compulsory

99
for professional musicians to develop their technique and musicality. Also, people might have
different views of their musical self-efficacy when influenced by different teaching and learning
styles rooted in different cultures.
Although this study concurred with Bandura’s idea that enactive mastery experience
(Bandura, 1997) was the strongest influence of musical self-efficacy, yet some different
meanings also emerged from Korean and international students. Even if they achieved their
goals, these students might have underestimated their musical abilities because they were raised
in a culture that emphasizes modest and “self-criticism,” rather than “self-enhancement.”
(Klassen, 2004) As such, Bandura’s self-efficacy theory might not work for some Korean and
international students because of their culture of upbringing. This aligns with to one of the
criticisms on self-efficacy theory that was discussed earlier, which is the ignorance of cultural
contexts (Klassen, 2004). Since Bandura’s work focused primarily on Western culture, caution is
needed when applying his theory of self-efficacy to different cultures.
Some may have issues with the findings from this study because they might sound like
criticism to the Korean educational system. However, the focus of this study was not on
meticulous comparisons of “educational systems” in South Korea and the United States. That
would require a thorough study of educational policies and practices in both countries, which
was not what was done in the current study. The focus here was on how students from these two
countries perceived their musical self-efficacy and how the latter might be related to their
educational experiences, in the United States and South Korea. In other words, this study did not
intend to pinpoint whether one educational system was better than the other. Therefore, the
findings that emerged from the interviews with Korean and international students should be

100
understood with a focus on how they perceived their musical self-efficacy, as well as within the
limits of self-reports.
Furthermore, as Tweed and Lehman (2002) pointed out, I believe that there is much to
learn from different intellectual traditions stemming from different cultures. Based on the
findings in this study, I would like to conclude this dissertation by offering some suggestions for
American and Korean music educators.
For American music educators: We must help students develop equal skills in both
technique and musicality from very early on. As revealed in the interview data, American
students in this study were taught to be more focused on developing creativity and musicality
when they were young. Although a focus on creativity and musicality could make students be
more confident about their musical interpretation, many study participants reported that they
struggled with their technique. Since developing technique is a foundation of music learning, it
should be considered equally important as developing musicality and creativity. Therefore, more
balance in teaching might be needed for American music teachers. In addition, American
teachers could provide more direct, constructive comments to their students. Many American and
international students interviewed in this study mentioned that some of their American teachers
always “sugar-coated” their comments, which made some of them doubt their teachers’ positive
comments and not take them seriously. The United States is a strong individualist culture where
“self-enhancement” is considered important (Klassen, 2004). This might explain why American
teachers tend to provide positive comments to their students, as a way to raise their students’
self-confidence and self-worth. However, comments should also be straight to the point, so that
students can develop a more objective view of their performances. If they only receive positive
comments, they could probably believe themselves to be good musicians, which could

101
potentially leave less room for the development of their performance skills. On that note, some
international students in this study described their American peers to be overconfident about
their musical abilities, which some attributed to encouragement and positive comments from
their teachers. However, as mentioned earlier, positive comments may not work for students if
they are not straight to the point, yet constructive. Thus, American teachers could provide more
balanced and constructive comments to help their students.
For Korean music educators: As seen in the interviews, Korean and international students
were able to develop an excellent technique since they were young, as they were not allowed to
make slightest mistakes. This emphasis on “technique” might be influenced by Confucian
philosophy, which emphasizes that the goal of learning is to learn the essential skills (Tweed &
Lehman, 2002). However, since Confucian philosophy stresses the acquisition of “correct”
knowledge and not the discovery of new knowledge (Ho et al., 2002), Korean teachers often
direct their students’ attention to every detail of “what needs to be done” and “how to do it.”
Korean students are, therefore, made to imitate their teachers’ musical interpretations (which are
considered to be “correct”), and are often unable to develop their own musical interpretations. By
contrast, in the United States where a Socratic approach is dominant, American teachers
encourage their students to engage in critical thinking by asking deeper questions and making
them find answers by themselves. Thus, Korean teachers could give space for their students to
develop creativity and their own musical interpretations by themselves. Korean students also
need more emotional support in the form of understanding from their teachers. Since these
students were raised in collectivist culture, where academic achievement is considered a means
to gain prestige in society (Hofstede, 1986), they received enormous pressure to succeed in
school since young. Fear of academic failure might be motivation for Korean students to exert

102
more effort to achieve their goals. However, this pressure might threaten students’ mental health
and even result in depression, as revealed in interviews with two male Korean musicians in this
study. Thus, students need more emotional support to mitigate this social pressure. Such support
could come from teachers, whom they trust and considered important in their lives. As musicians
who probably experienced similar pressures when they were young, teachers are probably in a
better position to understand their student than anyone else. As seen in the interviews with
international students, teachers’ encouragement and understanding could make Korean students
more confident in their musical abilities and even help them achieve more positive outcomes.
Likewise, educators could help students benefit from different intellectual traditions from
different cultures (Tweed & Lehman, 2002). As educators, we must acknowledge that students
from different cultural backgrounds may learn in different ways; we cannot just ignore their
culture and learning styles. By having more knowledge of different cultures and by trying to get
to know and understand students from different cultures, we could potentially help all students
benefit from different cultures and their associated learning styles. This is important as both may
positively impact students’ musical self-efficacy.
In conclusion, inspired by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977), this study also
confirmed the importance of previous successful musical experience for musicians to have strong
beliefs in their musical abilities. However, findings from this study cautions researchers when
applying Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to non-Western cultures. While more studies are clearly
needed for us to get a clearer understanding of Bandura’s work as applied to music learning in
different cultures, it is clear that students from different cultural groups may be influenced by
other sources, in addition to the four sources of information that Bandura suggested in his theory.

103
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school
Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499. doi:
10.1002/tea.20131
Cahill Clark, J. (2012). A qualitative exploration of higher self-efficacy string students preparing
for a competition. International Journal of Music Education, 31(1), 4-14. doi:
10.1177/0255761411431393
Choi, J. H. (2012). Attitudes of international music students from East Asia toward US higher
education institutions. International journal of music education, 31(3), 346-358. doi:
10.1177/0255761411433719
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five approaches
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing? London: Bloomsbury
Academic.

104
Hendricks, K. S. (2009). Relationships between the sources of self-efficacy and changes in
competence perceptions of music students during an All-State Orchestra event. University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Hendricks, K. S. (2014). Changes in self-efficacy beliefs over time: Contextual influences of
gender, rank-based placement, and social support in a competitive orchestra environment.
Psychology of Music, 42(3), 347-365. doi: 10.1177/0305735612471238
Hendricks, K. S., & Smith, T. D. (2018). Eclectic styles and classical performance: Motivation
and self-efficacy belief at two summer music camps. String Research Journal, 8(1), 33-
49. doi: 10.1177/1948499218769632
Hewitt, M. P. (2015). Self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and music performance of secondary-level
band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(3), 298-313. doi:
10.1177/0022429415595611
Ho, D. Y. F., Peng, S. Q., & Chan, S. F. F. (2002). Authority and learning in Confucian-heritage
education: A relational methodological analysis. In C. Y. Chiu, F. Salili, & Y. Y. Hong
(Eds.), Multiple competencies and self-regulated learning: Implications for multicultural
education (pp. 29–47). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hofstede, G. (1979). Value System in Forty Countries: Interpretation, Validation, and
Consequences for Theory. In L. H. Eckensberger, W. J. Lonner, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.)
Cross-Cultural Contributions to Psychology. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

105
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations : Software of the
mind : Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (Rev. 3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. “n.d., Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com” copyright 2019 by
Hofstede Insights.
Kim, Y. (2007). Difficulties in quality doctoral academic advising: Experiences of Korean
students. Journal of Research in International Education, 6(2), 171-193. doi:
10.1177/1475240907078613
Kim, U., & Park, Y. S. (2006). Indigenous psychological analysis of academic achievement in
Korea: The influence of self- efficacy, parents, and culture. International Journal of
Psychology, 41(4), 287-292. doi: 10.1080/00207590544000068
Kim, E. A. (2015). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Comparison of South Korea and the United
States. Cambridge Business & Economics Conference. ISBN: 9780974211428
Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: a review of self-efficacy from a cross-cultural
perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 205-230. doi:
10.1080/0020759034400033

106

Lee, K. S., & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean College Students in United States: Perceptions of
Professors and Students. College Student Journal, 40(2), 442–456. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=2137
5570
Liberman, K. (1994). Asian student perspectives on American university instruction.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 173-192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90027-2
Martin, L. (2012). The musical self-efficacy beliefs of middle school band students: An
investigation of sources, meanings, and relationships with attributions for success and
failure. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (191), 45-60.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
McCormick, J., & McPherson, G. (2003). The Role of Self-Efficacy in a Musical Performance
Examination: An Exploratory Structural Equation Analysis. Psychology of Music, 31(1),
37–51. doi:10.1177/0305735603031001322
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of
music, 34(3), 322-336. doi: 10.1177/0305735606064841
Miksza, P., & Tan, L. (2015). Predicting collegiate wind players’ practice efficiency, flow, and
self-efficacy for self-regulation: An exploratory study of relationships between teachers’
instruction and students’ practicing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(2), 162-
179. doi: 10.1177/0022429415583474

107
Nes, F. Van, Abma, T., Jonsson, H. and Deeg, D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative
research: Is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 313–316. doi:
10.1007/s10433-010-0168-y
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual
practice: A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32(4), 418-
431. doi: 10.1177/0305735604046099
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-
efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
86(2), 193. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.193
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426-443.
doi: 10.1006/ceps.1995.1029
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578. doi:10.3102/00346543066004543
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of
entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 163-175.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2<163::AID-PITS10>3.0.CO;2-C
Ritchie, L., & Williamon, A. (2011). Primary school children’s self-efficacy for music learning.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 146-161. doi:
10.1177/0022429411405214

108
Ritchie, L., & Williamon, A. (2012). Self-efficacy as a predictor of musical performance quality.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 334. doi: 10.1037/a0029619
Schmidt, M. (2014). Collecting and Analyzing Observation Data. In Conway, C. (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook for Qualitative Research in Music Education (pp. 227-249). Oxford
University Press: New York, NY.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1(3), 173-208.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-
4), 207-231.
Seo, S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2005). A hermeneutical study of older Korean graduate
students’ experiences in American higher education: From Confucianism to western
educational values. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(2), 164-187. doi:
10.1177/1028315305274695
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51(4), 407.
Triandis, H. C. (2001a). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In D.
Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35–50). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Triandis, H. C. (2001b). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality,
69(6), 907-924.
Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Perspectives,
18(1), 88-93.

109
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:
Confucian and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89. doi:
10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.89
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to motivation
and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1146. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1146
Watkins, D. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective. School Leadership &
Management, 20(2), 161-173. doi: 10.1080/13632430050011407
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage
publications.
Zelenak, M. S. (2015). Measuring the sources of self-efficacy among secondary school music
students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 389-404. doi:
10.1177/0022429414555018
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 82-91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

110
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Thanks for sharing your time with me today. Today, I want to share a little bit about my own
story as a musician, and I also would like to hear your story. About 2 years ago, I read a really
interesting book that was related to my own experience. In the book, there was a suggestion that
if a person strongly believes he or she can complete a certain task, that person will likely to have
a higher chance of achieving his or her own goal. Because this person has a strong belief, he or
she will put more effort on it thus this person will achieve a goal more easily compared to the
counterparts, who don’t believe their ability. Although this book was about psychology, this
made me become interested in how other musicians believe in their own abilities to organize and
achieve their musical goals.

When I was in undergraduate, I had a really terrible stage fright. Even though I practiced
a lot to overcome my nervousness, I started to tremble my lips and my hands were shaking when
I had to perform in front of many people. Because of this anxiety, I was always not sure about
my musical ability. Even though I practiced hard, when I got nervous, I was not able to enjoy
being on stage. Since this nervousness was something that I could not control, I was always not
sure that I could perform well. Thus, I always got discouraged and at the end, this made me give
up being a professional musician. -- physiological state

Since I was so curious about how other musicians believe their own musical abilities
when they prepare a concert, jury, a competition, etc., I asked my friends whether they have their
beliefs in themselves to organize and execute a certain task well. One of my friends, Lisa is a
violinist. She told me that she strongly believed in her musical ability because she had many
successful experiences as a performer. Even if her goal is not really important one like a jury, I
mean jury is important but when we are in school, we take it every semester, right? After she had
this successful experience, she felt a sense of achievement and became more confident about her
performance ability. -- mastery experience

My other friend Laura, who is a flutist who always judges her own performance with
others like peers or her role model. She always competes with someone who is in similar age,
and who has similar performance ability to her. For example, in her studio, there are 3 more
students. When one of them wins a concerto audition, that makes Laura to believe herself,
“maybe I could win it, too.” This made her work harder and achieve her goals. However, when
her friend was not able to achieve a goal, she also felt that she might not able to make it. --
vicarious experience

The other friend, Jane believes that when she prepares something like a recital, or a
competition, she does not believe that she could achieve her goals. This was because she has
been discouraged by her teacher’s negative comments. Jane believes that her teacher’s feedback
is really important because she respects her teacher so much as a musician, thus she really
considers her teacher’s comments more important than any others’ comments. For this reason,
when she received negative feedbacks from her teacher, this made her not believe that she can
achieve her goal. --verbal/social persuasion

111

Now, I want to listen to your story.

Q1) When you set musical goals such as winning a competition or an audition, do you believe
you can successfully prepare and achieve your goals? Have you ever had similar experience with
one of my friends or my previous experience?

Q2) What makes you believe that you can achieve your musical goals? If not, what makes you
not believe that you can achieve your musical goals?

Q3) How do you set musical goals for yourself? How often do you believe that you can achieve
them?

Q4) Do you compare your musical ability or achievement with others (e.g. peers, role models)?
In what way? Is this a standard for you to judge your musical ability? How so?

Q5) How do you view what other people say about your performance? Is their feedback more
important than your own opinions about your own performance?

Q6) Tell me about your excitement about performing on stage. Have you ever had stage fright?

Q7) Do you think that your belief toward your performance ability has been changed? If so,
how?

Q8) How many years have you spent in the United States and what was your motivation for
moving here to study? (International students only)

Q9) In what ways (if any) have your beliefs about your musical ability changed after studying
abroad? (International students only)

Q10) Do you see any differences between your learning experiences in Korea and in America?
Please explain. (International students only)

Q11) Could you explain any conflicts and challenges that you’ve had as an International student
after studying abroad or during studying abroad? (International students only)

112
Appendix B: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Form

University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board
3720 South Flower Street Credit Union Building (CUB) #301
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702
Phone: 213-821-5272
Fax: 213-821-5276
upirb@usc.edu

Date: Apr 23, 2018, 03:59pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal Investigator: Yoo Ji Hwang
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Faculty Advisor: Beatriz Ilari
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Co-Investigator(s):
Project Title: A Cross-Culture Comparison of Musical Self-Efficacy in Higher
Education
Study ID: UP-18-00227
Funding:

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project
meets the requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.101(b) category (1), (2) and qualifies for
exemption from IRB review. This study was approved on 4/23/2018 and is not subject to further
IRB review.

Consent and recruitment documents are not required to be uploaded for exempt studies; however,
researchers are reminded that USC follows the principles of the Belmont Report, which requires
all potential participants to be informed of the research study, their rights as a participant,
confidentiality of their data, etc. It is recommended that you utilize the Information Sheet For
Exempt Research and revise the template to be specific to your study. This document will not be
reviewed by the IRB. It is the responsibility of the researcher to make sure the document is
consistent with the study procedures listed in the application.

113
All submissions, including new applications, contingency responses, amendments and continuing
reviews are reviewed in the order received.

Attachments: No documents

Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register with
clinicaltrials.gov or other International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
approved registries in order to be published in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE will not accept
studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to enrollment, despite the fact that
these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as defined by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). For support with registration, go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan
(jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).

Approved Documents: view

This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using the "reply"
address. A response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have further questions, please
contact iStar Support at (323) 276-2238 or istar@usc.edu.

The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified recipients only. If you
have received this email in error, please notify istar@usc.edu and delete this message.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative, multiple-case study was to examine the perceptions of musical self-efficacy of graduate students in two countries, to gauge how different culture and learning experiences affected their perceptions of musical self-efficacy. 15 participants from three different groups were recruited for this multiple case study: American, Korean and international students from South Korea studying in the United States. These students were majoring in classical music instruments and pursuing their masters’ or doctoral degrees at top music schools in both countries in a university setting. International students were chosen to see whether their musical self-efficacy differed from that of their peers in South Korea through their study abroad experiences. In-depth interviews with participants revealed that previous successful experiences in music were the strongest determinant of higher musical self-efficacy. Participants also considered practice time as a significant indicator of higher musical self-efficacy. In general, participants in this study showed a higher level of musical self-efficacy. Interview data also indicated that international students became more confident and independent after they experienced different culture and learning environments. International students were able to develop their own musical interpretations in a culture, where their musical ideas were more valued and encouraged. Positive feedback and encouragement from American teachers also played a factor to ensure success in their music performances, producing more positive outcomes. Although findings from this study concurred with the idea that mastery experiences are the strongest influence on musical self-efficacy, some different meanings emerged from Korean and international students. This suggest that Bandura’s self-efficacy theory may need to be revised when applied to non-Western countries.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship between small ensemble experiences, empathy, and emotional self-regulation skills in music students

PDF

Case study of constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music teaching and learning in two elementary schools in Los Angeles

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Women in STEM: self-efficacy and its contributors in women in engineering within community college

PDF

Recent high school graduates' perceptions on their school experiences, musical lives and curriculum relevancy

PDF

Exploring the contributions of teacher authenticity in two high school band programs in Greater Los Angeles

PDF

Voices from within: perceptions of community youth orchestras and musical identities of child musicians

PDF

Music education in a post-pandemic world: motivators for the retention of music students

PDF

High school string orchestra students’ perceptions of wellness and its implications on musical performance

PDF

A crafted intergenerational district band: A bounded case study of participant experiences

PDF

Transformation of habitus and social trajectories: a retrospective study of a popular music program

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

Recovery from task specific embouchure dystonia in brass players: a multiple case study

PDF

Composing in groups: creative processes of third and fifth grade students

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

To be young, global, and Black: an evaluation of African-American college students’ participation in study abroad programs

PDF

Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective

PDF

Mindset and its role in first-year music teachers in differing cultures

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Hwang, Yoo Ji (author)

Core Title Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

School Thornton School of Music

Degree Doctor of Musical Arts

Degree Program Music Education

Publication Date 08/12/2019

Defense Date 05/09/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Confucianism,culture,musical self-efficacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,practice,self-efficacy,study abroad

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ilari, Beatriz (committee chair), Lewis, Judy (committee member), Webster, Peter (committee member)

Creator Email yoojihwa@usc.edu,yoojihwang@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-212979

Unique identifier UC11663202

Identifier etd-HwangYooJi-7768.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-212979 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HwangYooJi-7768.pdf

Dmrecord 212979

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hwang, Yoo Ji

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA