Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Based upon a sample of 232 German elementary school students aged 9–12 years, the present longitudinal study aimed to examine the relations between achievement, self-concepts, and intrinsic values in music, mathematics, and verbal domains within the generalized internal/external frame of reference model (GI/E model). Results showed significantly positive achievement-self-concept/intrinsic value relations within domains and some significant achievement-self-concept/intrinsic value relations across domains: Mathematics achievement negatively predicted verbal self-concept, verbal intrinsic value, and music intrinsic value, whereas verbal achievement positively predicted music self-concept and music intrinsic value but negatively predicted mathematics intrinsic value. Music achievement, in turn, positively predicted verbal intrinsic value. All three self-concepts mediated the achievement-intrinsic value relations within domains. Furthermore, verbal self-concept proved to mediate the relation of mathematics achievement to verbal intrinsic value, whereas music self-concept also proved to mediate the relation of verbal achievement to music intrinsic value.

Keywords

GI/E model music domain self-concept intrinsic value elementary school children

A great interest in self-concept research has been dedicated to the internal/external frame of reference model (I/E model, Marsh, 1986). This model posits that the relations between academic achievement and academic self-concepts (i.e., self-perceptions of academic abilities) are significantly influenced by social and dimensional comparisons because students use two frames of reference when evaluating their achievement: On the one hand, students use an external frame of reference for social comparisons, where they contrast their achievement to that of other classmates within domains. These comparisons result in positive effects of achievement on self-concepts within a domain. On the other hand, students also use an internal frame of reference for dimensional comparisons, where they contrast their achievement across domains. These comparisons can result in either negative (contrast) or positive (assimilation) effects of achievement in one domain on self-concepts in other domains. Contrast effects occur when the achievement-self-concept relations are compensatory. For instance, if students’ music achievement is high (low), their music self-concept may increase (decrease), while their mathematics or verbal self-concept may decrease (increase). In contrast, assimilation effects appear when students evaluate their achievement across domains in a very similar way because these domains share some similar contents. For instance, it is reasonable to assume that students who perform well in physics are also good at chemistry and may develop higher self-concepts in those two domains (Jansen et al., 2015). A paradoxical consequence of the interplay between social and dimensional comparisons in the I/E model is that self-concepts across domains (e.g., music and academic domains) are not or only weakly correlated with each other, whereas achievement across those domains is positively interrelated (e.g., Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2015; Möller et al., 2014, 2020). This paradoxical finding has also been found for domains other than academic domains (e.g., Arens & Preckel, 2018; Jansen et al., 2015) or predictors and outcomes other than academic achievement and academic self-concepts (e.g., Dörendahl et al., 2021; van der Westhuizen et al., 2022). While the original I/E model focuses on achievement as predictor of self-concepts in mathematics and verbal domains, the extension of the I/E model to other domains or other predictors and outcomes is also called the generalized I/E model in the literature (GI/E model; Möller et al., 2015). Thus, the GI/E model suggests that students generally contrast their characteristics within and across domains to each other (Möller & Marsh, 2013). For instance, some studies have considered students’ achievement as predictor and several motivational-affective characteristics as outcomes in the GI/E model, such as students’ perceptions of effort (Lohbeck, 2019), intrinsic motivation (Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2015), interest (Schurtz et al., 2014), anxiety (van der Westhuizen et al., 2022), enjoyment (Goetz et al., 2008), or achievement goals (Dörendahl et al., 2021). However, none of those studies have yet integrated the music domain into the GI/E model. Although the relations between music and academic domains have been investigated in numerous studies (dos Santos-Luiz et al., 2016; Sala & Gobet, 2017; see also Guhn et al., 2020 for a review), no study has so far explored the possible impact of social and dimensional comparisons on the formation of students’ music self-concept within the GI/E model framework. As a consequence, it is still unclear whether social and dimensional comparisons across music and academic domains also influence the formation of students’ music self-concept or other desirable outcomes, such as students’ music intrinsic value (i.e., the extent of enjoyment that students perceive from performing a task; Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). For this reason, this study aimed to advance previous literature by (1) extending the GI/E model to the music domain in addition to mathematics and verbal domains, (2) integrating both self-concepts and intrinsic values as outcomes of achievement into the GI/E model, (3) testing the possible mediating effects of self-concepts on the relations between achievement and intrinsic values, and finally (4) using a rather young sample of elementary school children, who have largely been neglected in the literature relative to secondary school students. This study is thus the first to explore the possible underlying influencing processes (i.e., social and dimensional comparison processes) of the formation of elementary school children’s self-concepts and intrinsic values across music and academic domains within the GI/E model framework. Given that students’ music self-concept and music intrinsic value are two essential factors that positively influence students’ music achievement or other desirable outcomes (see West, 2013 for a review), knowledge about the underlying processes of the formation of students’ music self-concept and music intrinsic value can help teachers create more specific intervention programs in music education aiming at enhancing students’ music self-concept or music intrinsic value and keeping students from making negative (contrast) dimensional comparisons, which are more likely to result in lower self-concepts (Möller et al., 2020; Wigfield et al., 2020; for an overview).

Marsh/Shavelson self-concept model

A theoretical rationale for proposing contrast and assimilation effects in the GI/E model is the revised Marsh/Shavelson’s self-concept model (Marsh, 1990; Marsh et al., 1988). According to the original self-concept model by Shavelson et al. (1976), self-concept represents a multidimensional, hierarchically structured construct, which encompasses all individual’s self-evaluations of abilities and characteristics in different domains. At the top of the hierarchy is the general self-concept, also known as self-esteem, which includes all individual’s global self-evaluations. This global self-concept is subdivided into an academic and a non-academic self-concept part at the next level. While the academic self-concept part subsumes all self-evaluations of abilities in academic domains (e.g., history, mathematics, or biology), the non-academic self-concept part relates to all self-evaluations of social, emotional, and physical aspects, such as social relationships, emotions, and physical abilities. However, since mathematics and verbal self-concepts were non-significantly correlated with each other, Marsh et al. (1988) revised this model later by summarizing two higher order factors of a general mathematics self-concept and a general verbal self-concept. This model assumes that academic self-concepts can be ordered along a verbal-mathematical continuum, depending on the similarity of the domains. While mathematics self-concept is expected to be located on the first endpoint, verbal self-concept is expected to be located on the last endpoint of this continuum. Academic self-concepts in more similar domains (e.g., mathematics, physics) should be placed next to each other, whereas academic self-concepts in more dissimilar domains (e.g., mathematics, English) should be placed more far from each other on this continuum (Guo et al., 2017; Jansen et al., 2015; Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2015). Despite some exceptions (e.g., Helm et al., 2016; Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2015; Niepel et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2013), several studies have provided support for those positive (assimilation) effects (e.g., Jansen et al., 2015; Marsh, Lüdtke, et al., 2015).

Dimensional Comparison Theory (DCT)

Although dimensional comparisons were firstly explained in the I/E model (Marsh, 1986), they have become more prominent in dimensional comparison theory (DCT; Möller & Marsh, 2013). DCT suggests that students can make two kinds of dimensional comparisons when evaluating their achievement: (1) If students contrast their achievement in very dissimilar domains to each other (e.g., music, sports), achievement in one domain shows negative (contrast) effects on self-concepts in other domains. (2) If students contrast their achievement in very similar domains (e.g., biology, physics, chemistry) to each other, achievement in one domain has positive (assimilation) effects on self-concepts in other domains. Support for these assumptions has been found in various domains (e.g., Guo et al., 2017; Helm et al., 2016; Jansen et al., 2015; Möller et al., 2015). However, results of the available studies are rather mixed (Jansen et al., 2015; Marsh, Abduljabbar, et al., 2015; Niepel et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2013) and almost no study has yet investigated students’ perceived (dis)similarity of both academic and non-academic domains simultaneously. An exception is a study by Haag and Goetz (2012), in which students perceived mathematics, German, and music as very dissimilar but mathematics and physics or German and English as very similar. However, the GI/E model was not tested in this study and no study has so far explored whether social and dimensional comparisons also exist between music, mathematics, and verbal domains.

Evidence for the GI/E model in elementary schools

A few studies have already provided support for the generalizability of the GI/E model in elementary schools (e.g., Arens & Preckel, 2018; Lohbeck, 2019; Schneider & Sparfeldt, 2020). For instance, Arens and Preckel (2018) extended the GI/E model to the non-academic physical domain, in addition to mathematics and German domains, with achievement as a predictor of self-concepts and intrinsic values in 514 elementary school children from Grade 3. Results revealed significantly positive effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values across domains, reflecting social comparisons. However, evidence for significantly negative (contrast) effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values, reflecting dimensional comparisons, was only found across academic domains but not across both academic domains and the physical domain. Similarly, using a sample of 858 elementary school children from Grades 2 to 4, Schneider and Sparfeldt (2020) tested the GI/E model with competence and affect self-concepts (as they were also operationalized in this study) as outcomes of achievement in mathematics and German domains. In all three grades, they found moderate to high effects of achievement on self-concepts, supporting social comparisons but only some significant effects of achievement on self-concepts across domains, i.e., significantly negative effects from (1) mathematics achievement to German affect self-concept in Grade 2; (2) from German achievement to mathematics competence self-concept in Grade 4; and (c) from German achievement to mathematics affect self-concept in Grades 3 and 4. In contrast, drawing on a sample of 200 fourth graders, Lohbeck (2019) examined the GI/E model with both competence and affect self-concepts (as also operationalized in this study) as well as self-perceptions of effort as outcomes of achievement in mathematics and German domains. Results significantly positive effects of achievement on self-concepts and significantly positive effects of self-concepts on self-perceptions of effort within domains, supporting social comparisons. However, there was no support for significantly negative effects of achievement on academic self-concepts or significantly negative effects of self-concepts on self-perceptions of effort across domains, indicating dimensional comparisons. Both academic self-concepts even showed significantly positive effects on self-perceptions of effort in corresponding domains. Furthermore, there were non-significant achievement effects on self-perceptions of effort, except for German achievement which was slightly positively related to self-perceptions of German effort. This research indicates that dimensional comparisons are less frequently used by elementary school students than social comparisons.

Research on music education and music psychology

A plethora of studies have highlighted the cognitive and educational benefits of music education for many executive functions that are closely related to academic skills (Dumont et al., 2017; Frischen et al., 2021; Guhn et al., 2020; Jaschke et al., 2018; see also Hogenes et al. (2014) for a review on the impact of music on children’s functioning). For instance, numerous studies have shown that music training significantly influenced students’ reading and linguistic skills (e.g., Carioti et al., 2019; Hogenes et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2009; Slater et al., 2014; Tierney & Kraus, 2013), phonological awareness (Gordon et al., 2015; Linnavalli et al., 2018; Moritz et al., 2013; Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2018; Vaiouli & Grimmet, 2020), word matching, letter sounding, and word reading (Corrigall & Trainor, 2011; Degé & Schwarzer, 2011; Peynircioglu et al., 2002), or verbal memory (Roden et al., 2012). More specifically, Carioti et al. (2019) investigated 128 students aged 10 and 14 years at the beginning of Grade 6 and 1 year later, at the beginning of Grade 7. Of these, 72 students attended a music curriculum (30 with previous music experience and 42 without), while 56 students belonged to a standard curriculum (44 with prior music experience and 12 without). Results showed that students attending the music curriculum systematically outperformed students of the control group in tests of general cognitive abilities, visuospatial skills, and accuracy in reading and memory tests. Similarly, Jaschke et al. (2018) examined 147 primary school children who were randomized into the following four groups: two music intervention groups, one active visual arts group, and a no arts control group. Children in the visual arts group also performed significantly better on visuospatial memory tasks as compared with the three other conditions.

In contrast, studies testing the effects of musical training on children’s logical–mathematical skills have been rather inconclusive, showing either no (Elpus, 2013; Holmes & Hallam, 2017) or positive effects on mathematics skills (Rauscher & Hinton, 2011), such as counting (Hallam, 2010), operations and algebra (Barroso et al., 2019; Guhn et al., 2020), or proportions and ratios (Vaughn, 2000). For instance, Mehr et al. (2013) tested the effects from music lessons to mathematics skills in 5-year-old children and found no support for significant differences in mathematics tests between children attending either a music program or a visual arts group. In contrast, Holochwost et al. (2017) reported in a study with 265 school-aged children from Grades 1 to 8 that students attending a music education program scored significantly higher on all standardized achievement tests (i.e., reading, mathematics, language arts) and had better grades in English language arts and mathematics than students in the control group. Furthermore, there is also evidence that music education significantly affects students’ second language learning (Busse et al., 2021; see also Zeromskaite, 2014 for a review), emotional well-being (Jones et al., 2020), emotion regulation (e.g., Campbell et al., 2007; Sakka & Juslin, 2018; Seifried, 2006), and identity formation (Cabedo-Mas & Díaz-Gómez, 2013; Seifried, 2006; see also Ilari, 2020 for an overview of longitudinal research on music education and child development). For instance, using a sample of 9- to 11-year-old children, Degé and Schwarzer (2018) showed that children attending an extended musical curriculum exhibited a significantly higher academic self-concept after a year of participation than children not attending the curriculum. A more positive music self-concept has, in turn, been found to be closely related to higher levels of self-esteem (Scalas et al., 2017) and intrinsic motivation for musical activities (West, 2013). This research highlights the great relevance of music education for several academic outcomes. However, it must also be noted that the effects of music training on cognitive and academic skills are mostly small in previous research (see the comprehensive meta-analyses by Cooper, 2020; Gordon et al., 2015; Sala & Gobet, 2017, 2020) and most of the available studies testing the effects of music training have focused on executive functions but not on (academic) achievement.

Mediating effects of self-concepts

In addition to students’ self-concepts, the present study considered students’ intrinsic values as outcomes of achievement in the GI/E model. Intrinsic values were mostly described in expectancy-value theory (EVT; Eccles et al., 1983), which has recently been retitled situated expectancy-value theory (SEVT; see Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Both EVT and SEVT suggest that individuals’ performance, behavior, and choices of activities are significantly determined by (1) their expectancies of success (or self-concepts) and (2) subjective valuing of tasks or activities. For instance, if students show a more positive music self-concept and perceive a high value of music tasks, they are more likely to perform well (low) in music. Evidence supporting the strong links between expectancies of success (or self-concepts), intrinsic values, and achievement has been found for multiple (academic) domains (e.g., Arens & Preckel, 2018; Gaspard et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017; Helm et al., 2020). Furthermore, both EVT and SEVT propose that expectancies of success (or self-concepts) also mediate the relations between several psychological, situational or contextual factors and achievement-related outcomes. Support for significant mediating effects of self-concept on the relations between students’ academic achievement and intrinsic values or other desirable outcomes has been reported in different domains (e.g., Dörendahl et al., 2020; Lohbeck, 2019; Schurtz et al., 2014; Trautwein et al., 2006). For instance, in the study by Lohbeck (2019), both academic self-concepts in mathematics and verbal domains mediated the effects from achievement to self-perceptions of effort in corresponding domains. Similarly, Dörendahl et al. (2020) tested a GI/E mediation model with self-concept as a mediator of the relations between achievement and achievement goals in mathematics and verbal domains. All initially significant direct paths from achievement to achievement goals became non-significant within domains when integrating self-concept as a mediator into the GI/E model, indicating full mediation. These full mediation effects were also found across domains, with only one exception. This study aimed to add to this research by exploring whether students’ self-concepts also mediate the relations between achievement and intrinsic values within and across music and academic domains.

Objectives and hypotheses

This study is unique in examining the relations between achievement, self-concepts, and intrinsic values in music, mathematics, and verbal domains within the GI/E model framework. Until now, no studies have yet investigated the possible impact of social and dimensional comparisons on the formation of students’ self-concepts and intrinsic values in these three domains in the GI/E model. For this reason, the present study attempted to fill this research gap by testing the following two research questions: (1) Are the relations posited by the GI/E model replicable in a sample of elementary school children when incorporating music, mathematics, and verbal domains into the GI/E model simultaneously? (2) Do elementary school students’ self-concepts mediate the relations between achievement and intrinsic values within and across domains? In line with the theoretical and empirical framework reviewed, all of the (G)I/E model’s predictions were expected to hold, that is, (1) positive effects of achievement on self-concept and intrinsic value within domains, (2) negative (contrast) or positive (assimilation) effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values across domains, and (3) higher correlations between achievement than self-concepts or intrinsic values across domains. Furthermore, (4), as stated by (S)EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and some previous research (e.g., Dörendahl et al., 2020; Lohbeck, 2019; Schurtz et al., 2014; Trautwein et al., 2006), self-concepts were also assumed to mediate the relations between achievement and intrinsic values in the GI/E model.

Method

Sample

The present study is a longitudinal study with two measurement points. The sample of the first measurement point (T1) consisted of 232 elementary school students (boys: n = 108; girls: n = 120, four students did not report their sex), while the sample of the second measurement point (T2) included n = 209 students (boys: n = 95; girls: n = 110, four students did not report their sex). Students attended 13 classes from Grade 4 in seven elementary schools. The number of students per class varied between 10 and 29. Students’ ages ranged from 9 to 12 years in the total sample (M = 9.76, SD = 0.68).

Procedures

The first data collection (T1) took place around early/mid-April 2017, and the second data collection was performed around early/mid-July 2017. All schools were randomly selected and located in the North of Germany, Lower Saxony. The selection of the schools was based on a list of all schools in the city and district of the first author. First, the first author contacted the school principals of the available schools through phone or email. Second, when the school principals agreed to participate, they asked the teachers at “their” school to accept the data collection in their class. Third, the school principals informed the first author of the number of participating classes and the date for the data collection. All school principals, teachers, students, and students’ parents were informed about the purpose of the study and gave written consent to take part in the study. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Data collection was administered in class by trained university students who confirmed data confidentiality and read all items aloud in class to facilitate children’s responding. All children were able to complete the questionnaire within one lesson (45 min) at school. The training of the university students was conducted by the first author during several lectures and seminars at university, in which the first author explained both the procedure and implementation of the survey in the schools. Furthermore, the first author provided a small booklet in which all information about the procedure and implementation was documented in detail. One lecture of 90 min was sufficient for this training. All procedures were in line with the ethical principles and human subjects’ standards, and the institutional review board from the institution of the authorship also approved the study.

Measures

Self-concepts

Students’ self-concepts in the three domains were measured with two questionnaires at the second measurement point, that is, the short German version of the Self-Description Questionnaire I-GS (SDQ I-GS; Arens et al., 2013) and the short version of the Music Self-Perception Inventory (MUSPI; Morin et al., 2016, 2017). The MUSPI consists of 84 items, with a 12-item Overall Music Ability subscale and six 12-item domain-specific subscales (i.e., Singing, Instrument Playing, Reading Music, Listening, Composing, Moving to Music). For both academic self-concepts, three positively worded items were used (i.e., “I am good at mathematics/German,” “I learn things quickly in mathematics/German,” and “Work in mathematics/German is easy for me”). Analogously, for music self-concept, three items of the global music self-concept scale from the short version of the MUSPI (Morin et al., 2016, 2017) were applied (i.e., “I am good at doing most music-related activities,” “I am confident in my ability to do most music-related activities,” and “Doing most music-related activities is easy for me”). All responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (false) to 5 (true).

Intrinsic values

Students’ intrinsic values in the three domains were also measured with the SDQ I-G (Arens et al., 2013) at the second measurement point. As the MUSPI does not include any items for intrinsic values, all three intrinsic values were assessed with three items derived from the SDQ I-GS (i.e., “I like mathematics/German/music,” “I am interested in mathematics/German/music,” and “I look forward to mathematics/German/music”). All items were evaluated on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 (false) to 5 (true).

Achievement

Apart from the questionnaires, children’s self-reported grades of the last school report were also recorded at the first measurement point. For easier interpretation of the correlation analysis, all three grades were reverse-coded because grades usually differ from 1 (very good) to 6 (insufficient) in the German educational system; thus, higher values reflect higher achievement in the correlation and regression analysis.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) using the maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors (MLR) in Mplus 8.6 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998−2017). To replicate the pattern of relations in the GI/E model including music, mathematics, and verbal domains (RQ1), multiple SEM models were tested in which students’ self-concepts and intrinsic values of the second measurement point were considered as latent variables and students’ grades of the first measurement point were considered as manifest achievement indicators. To explore the possible mediating effects of self-concepts (RQ2), a GI/E mediation model was tested by using the “model indirect”-option in Mplus. In this model, both self-concepts and intrinsic values were regressed on achievement, and intrinsic values were also regressed on self-concepts in all three domains. To account for shared method variance associated with the wording of the items, correlated uniqueness between parallel-worded items was permitted (Byrne, 2012). Due to the hierarchical nature of the data, the “type = complex”-option in Mplus was used, and all variables were standardized within each class. To evaluate the fit of the models, the chi-square test statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis-index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with its confidence interval were considered. An adequate model fit was assumed if the RMSEA was < 0.08 and both the CFA and TLI were > 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Changes of the fit between the models were analyzed with the criteria by Cheung and Rensvold (2002); that is, the CFI should not decrease by more than .01 and the RMSEA should not increase by more than .015. Missing data were handled with the Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) approach. The number of missing values ranged from 0% to 2% on the item level. The intraclass correlations (ICCs) of all variables were additionally tested to determine whether the variance in the variables was located on the classroom level.

Results

Factor analysis

Results of CFA provided strong support for a clear differentiation between the six self-concept and intrinsic value factors. Table 1 presents the standardized results of the CFA models under investigation.

Table 1.
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of the Measurement Models.

χ² df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI

Three-factor CFA model 326.076 132 0.863 0.841 0.080 [0.069, 0.091]

Six-factor CFA model 173.917 120 0.962 0.951 0.044 [0.029, 0.058]

GI/E model 229.767 156 0.957 0.942 0.045 [0.032, 0.057]

Mediation model 252.928 159 0.945 0.928 0.050 [0.038, 0.062]

Note. CFA: Confirmatory factor analytic model; CFI: Comparative fit index; CI: RMSEA 90% confidence interval; df: Degrees of freedom; GI/E model: Generalized internal/external frame of reference model; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; χ²: chi square.

The 3-factor model with three latent factors showed a significantly worse fit to the data than the 6-factor model differentiating between six latent self-concept and intrinsic value factors (Δχ²[12] = 152.159, ΔCFI = −0.099, ΔTLI = −0.110, ΔRMSEA = +0.036). All six latent factors of the 6-factor model were well defined by adequate factor loadings (.59 ⩽ β ⩽ .88). For this reason, the 6-factor model was used for further analyses.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha estimates, ICCs, and correlations of all standardized variables are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.
Means (Standard Deviation), Coefficient Alpha Reliability Estimates (α), Intraclass Correlations (ICC), and Correlations.

α ICC M (SD) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Mathematics self-concept (T2) 0.80 0.03 3.79 (0.88) 0.77* 0.19* 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.56* 0.30* 0.18

2. Mathematics intrinsic value (T2) 0.89 0.01 3.67 (1.07) 0.05 0.25 0.03 −0.02 0.36* 0.02 0.06

3. German self-concept (T2) 0.80 0.00 3.67 (0.95) 0.79* 0.52* 0.45* 0.23 0.55* 0.29*

4. German intrinsic value (T2) 0.86 0.02 3.59 (0.98) 0.43* 0.44* 0.04 0.34* 0.23

5. Music self-concept (T2) 0.84 0.02 3.49 (1.23) 0.88* 0.19* 0.29* 0.46*

6. Music intrinsic value (T2) 0.87 0.01 3.76 (1.10) 0.10 0.23 0.36*

7. Mathematics achievement (T1) – 0.00 2.46 (0.87) 0.61* 0.33*

8. German achievement (T1) – 0.04 2.48 (0.74) 0.41***

9. Music achievement (T1) – 0.01 2.08 (0.74) –

Note. Grades were only measured at the first measurement point (T1). T2 = second measurement point.

*
p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

All six scales showed good reliability estimates, ranging from .80 to .89. The ICCs of the variables were low, ranging from .00 to .04. On a response scale from 1 (lowest value) to 3 (highest value), children’s self-concepts and intrinsic values were generally high, ranging from 3.49 (music self-concept) to 3.79 (mathematics self-concept). In contrast, children’s self-reported grades were rather satisfactory, ranging from 2.08 (music grade) to 2.48 (German grade) because the best grade is 1 (very good) and the worst grade is 6 (insufficient) in the German educational system.

All three latent self-concept factors were significantly positively related to the three latent intrinsic value factors and three grades within domains. Similarly, all three intrinsic value factors showed significantly positive correlations with the three grades within domains but at a lower level than the three self-concept factors. The correlations between the six self-concept and intrinsic value factors (−.02 ⩽ r ⩽ .25) were generally lower than those between the three grades across domains (.33 ⩽ r ⩽ .61), as also expected in Hypothesis 3. Only the correlation between German and music grades (r = .41) was numerically lower than that between German and music self-concepts or music intrinsic values (.43 ⩽ r ⩽ .52).

Research question 1

When exploring the first research question asking whether the pattern of relations posited by the GI/E model would be replicable in a sample of elementary school children when integrating music, mathematics, and verbal domains into the GI/E model simultaneously, not all of the GI/E model’s predictions held. Table 3 presents the results of the GI/E model tested in this study.

Table 3.
Standardized Path Coefficients of the GI/E Model.

MSC MIV GSC GIV MUSC MUIV

MACH 0.63 (0.05) 0.45* (0.06) –0.12* (0.06) –0.28** (0.06) –0.01 (0.06) –0.17* (0.07)

GACH −0.09 (0.07) –0.19 (0.07) 0.61* (0.06) 0.50* (0.06) 0.17 (0.06) 0.16* (0.07)

MUACH 0.03 (0.06) 0.11 (0.06) 0.10 (0.06) 0.17 (0.06) 0.46* (0.05) 0.39*** (0.06)

R ² 0.35 0.17 0.36 0.26 0.31 0.19

Note. Standard errors are displayed in brackets. GACH: German achievement; GIV: German intrinsic value; GSC: German self-concept; MACH: mathematics achievement; MIV: mathematics intrinsic value; MSC: mathematics self-concept; MUACH: music achievement; MUIV: music intrinsic value; MUSC: music self-concept. R² = explained variance.

*
p < .05; p < .01; *p < .001.

In support of Hypothesis 1, all three achievement measures significantly positively predicted self-concepts and intrinsic values within domains. In contrast, there was only less support for Hypothesis 2 stating significant effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values across domains: Mathematics achievement negatively predicted German self-concept, German intrinsic value, and music intrinsic value, while German achievement only negatively predicted mathematics intrinsic value but positively predicted music self-concept and music intrinsic value. Furthermore, music achievement also showed a significantly positive effect on German intrinsic value but non-significantly positive effects on both academic self-concepts and mathematics intrinsic value. Finally, all three achievement measures were significantly positively and higher correlated with each other than the six self-concept and intrinsic value factors. The amount of explained variance ranged from .17 to .36 (see Table 3). The fit of this model was sufficient (see Table 1). Figure 1 depicts the significant results of the GI/E model under investigation.

Figure 1.
Significant Results of the GI/E Model Under Investigation.

Research question 2

The second research question asked whether students’ self-concepts would mediate the relations between achievement and intrinsic values in the three domains. Results of this analysis are reported in Table 4.

Table 4.
Standardized Path Coefficients of the Mediation GI/E Model.

MIV GIV MUIV MSC GSC MUSC

Standardized direct effects

MACH 0.07 (0.08) –0.16 (0.11) –0.01 (0.07) 0.60*** (0.10) −0.19* (0.08) −0.05 (0.10)

GACH −0.29 (0.09) −0.05 (0.07) −0.05 (0.06) −0.07 (0.11) 0.63* (0.08) 0.17* (0.07)

MUACH 0.01 (0.05) 0.02 (0.07) −0.04 (0.04) 0.01 (0.07) 0.12 (0.08) 0.42* (0.09)

MSC 0.81* (0.06) 0.03 (0.07) –0.08 (0.09) – – –

GSC 0.08 (0.07) 0.81* (0.09) 0.11 (0.06) – – –

MUSIC −0.05 (0.06) 0.10 (0.07) 0.89* (0.04) – – –

Standardized indirect effects

MACH → MSC → 0.49*** (0.08) 0.02 (0.04) –0.05 (0.06) – – –

MACH → GSC → −0.02 (0.02) −0.15* (0.08) −0.02 (0.01) – – –

MACH → MUSIC → 0.00 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01) −0.04 (0.09) – – –

GACH → MSC → −0.05 (0.08) −0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) – – –

GACH → GSC → 0.05 (0.05) 0.51*** (0.09) 0.07 (0.04) – – –

GACH → MUSIC → −0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.15* (0.06) – – –

MUACH → MSC → 0.01 (0.06) 0.00 (0.00) –0.00 (0.01) – – –

MUACH → GSC → 0.01 (0.01) 0.10 (0.07) 0.01 (0.01) – – –

MUACH → MUSIC → −0.02 (0.05) 0.04 (0.03) 0.37*** (0.08) – – –

R ² 0.64 0.63 0.78 0.32 0.35 0.24

Note. Standard errors are displayed in brackets. GACH: German achievement; GIV: German intrinsic value; GSC: German self-concept; MACH: Mathematics achievement; MUACH: Music achievement; MIV: Mathematics intrinsic value, MSC: Mathematics self-concept, MUSC: Music self-concept, MUIV: Music intrinsic value. R²: explained variance.

*
p < .05; p < .01; *p < .001.

All three achievement measures were significantly positively related to self-concepts within domains. In contrast, mathematics achievement significantly negatively predicted German self-concept, whereas German achievement significantly positively predicted music self-concept but significantly negatively predicted mathematics intrinsic value. All three self-concepts, in turn, showed significantly positive effects on intrinsic values within domains. Furthermore, as expected in Hypothesis 4, all indirect relations were substantial within domains and there were some significant mediating effects of self-concepts across domains: German self-concept also proved to significantly negatively mediate the relation between mathematics achievement and German intrinsic value, while music self-concept also proved to significantly positively mediate the relation between German achievement and music intrinsic value. The amount of explained variance of the six self-concept and intrinsic value factors ranged from .24 to .78 (see Table 4). The fit of this model was acceptable (see Table 1).

Discussion

This study went beyond previous literature by extending the GI/E model to the music domain in addition to mathematics and verbal domains. To date, no study has already integrated the music domain into the GI/E model. Furthermore, by considering not only self-concepts but also intrinsic values as outcomes of achievement and exploring the possible mediating effects of self-concepts, this study is the first to provide evidence for the underlying processes of the formation of self-concepts and intrinsic values and the significance of self-concept as a mediator in the GI/E model. Finally, by using a rather neglected sample of elementary school children, this study also took a developmental psychological perspective and attempted to reveal what kind of comparisons were most frequently used by elementary school children in music, mathematics, and verbal domains.

The first research question asked whether the pattern of relations posited by the I/E model can be replicated when integrating all three domains into the GI/E model. In support of Hypothesis 1 and most other previous studies (see Möller et al., 2020; Wigfield et al., 2020 for an overview), elementary school children’s self-concepts were mostly determined by social comparisons, as evidenced by the significantly positive effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values within domains (Hypothesis 1). In contrast, Hypothesis 2 stating dimensional comparisons was only partially supported because not all effects of achievement on self-concepts and intrinsic values were substantial across domains (Hypothesis 2). The non-significant cross-domain relations do not seem to be unusual, as earlier studies have also shown that dimensional comparisons were less frequently used by elementary school students than social comparisons (e.g., Lohbeck & Möller, 2017; Möller et al., 2020; Weidinger et al., 2019). This result may result from younger children’s lower cognitive abilities (Harter, 2012) and indicates that elementary school children are not yet good at coordinating opposing concepts into their self-concepts across domains. However, the significantly negative effect of mathematics achievement on music intrinsic value in this study also suggests that elementary school children contrast mathematics and music domains to each other and perceive these domains as quite dissimilar, leading to lower (higher) music intrinsic value when their mathematics achievement is high (low). Thus, both social and dimensional comparisons can be functional or dysfunctional for the formation of elementary school students’ music self-concept and music intrinsic value. In contrast, the two significantly positive (assimilation) effects of German achievement on music self-concept and music intrinsic value propose that elementary school students perceive music and verbal domains as quite similar, leading to more or less positive music self-concept and music intrinsic value. A possible reason for these positive assimilation effects may be that both verbal and music domains require good reading and writing skills, whereas the mathematics domain demands more complex skills (e.g., multiplication, division, geometry). These results also align with other previous findings highlighting that music training significantly influences numerous executive functions related to verbal skills, such as reading and linguistic skills (e.g., Carioti et al., 2019; Hogenes et al., 2016; Moreno et al., 2009; Slater et al., 2014; Tierney & Kraus, 2013), phonological awareness (Gordon et al., 2015; Linnavalli et al., 2018; Moritz et al., 2013; Ozernov-Palchik et al., 2018; Vaiouli & Grimmet, 2020), word matching, letter sounding, and word reading (Degé & Schwarzer, 2011; Peynircioglu et al., 2002), or verbal memory (Roden et al., 2012). Furthermore, music requires good auditory skills, which have also been found to significantly mediate students’ reading ability (Schellenberg & Weiss, 2013). Finally, as expected in Hypothesis 3, results revealed significantly positive and higher correlations between achievement across domains than between self-concepts or intrinsic values across domains. This paradoxical finding can be attributed to the interplay between social and dimensional comparison processes and has also been reported in other previous studies supporting the generalizability of the GI/E model (e.g., Arens & Preckel, 2018; Gaspard et al., 2018; Trautwein et al., 2012).

When exploring the second research question asking whether the relations between achievement and intrinsic values would be mediated through self-concepts, results yielded significantly positive mediating effects of all three self-concepts on the relations between achievement and intrinsic values within domains. Intriguingly, there were also two significant mediating effects of German and music self-concepts across domains: While German self-concept also proved to mediate the relation between mathematics achievement and German intrinsic value, music self-concept also proved to mediate the relation between German achievement and music intrinsic value. These results are also consistent with Hypothesis 4 and previous research (e.g., Dörendahl et al., 2020; Lohbeck, 2019; Schurtz et al., 2014; Trautwein et al., 2006) stating that students’ self-concepts play a crucial role in predicting their intrinsic values or other desirable outcomes within and across domains.

Implications

Results of this study provide several important implications for teachers or intervention researchers aiming at enhancing children’s music self-concept and music intrinsic value at school. On the one hand, if children are performing well in German, they show a more positive music self-concept and higher music intrinsic value, which may be caused by lower mathematics achievement. On the other hand, if children are performing low in German, they demonstrate a more negative music self-concept and lower music intrinsic value, which may result from higher mathematics achievement. An important implication of this research is that teachers should be aware of those negative (contrast) dimensional comparisons and try to avoid those rather dysfunctional comparisons to improve students’ music self-concept and music intrinsic value. Some effective strategies to support more functional comparisons in students may be, for instance, highlighting students’ individual progress and success, providing individually challenging tasks, setting achievable, realistic learning goals, which the students can determine themselves, emphasizing that competences can be improved through effort and are the result of effort, offering individual feedback on students’ performance, using individual reference norms, and creating a pleasant and constructive learning climate in class by interpreting mistakes as learning opportunities and not as signs of a lack of skills (see Craven et al., 2003 for an overview of self-concept enhancement research). Moreover, given the cross-domain effects from both academic domains to the music domain, teachers could promote children’s music self-concept and music intrinsic value by implementing, for instance, music-themed activities in mathematics and German lessons and transforming traditional education through entertainment (An et al., 2018). Some research has already shown that music education increases students’ capacity to remember information (Crowther et al., 2016) and to learn more effectively because music stimulates the brain (Pretorius, 2017) and helps students to associate what they have felt and heard in songs or melodies (Haddad & Heong, 2020). Furthermore, mathematics lessons integrated with music have been found to improve students’ motivation to learn mathematics (An & Capraro, 2011; An et al., 2014). Finally, teaching grammar through singing may also be a very effective strategy for supporting language learning processes of elementary school children, as younger children may still have problems with grammar instruction due to their shorter attention spans, and singing does not require complex resources (Busse et al., 2021).

Limitations

This study has several limitations: The first limitation of this study concerns the measurement of the variables because only two measurement points were taken into consideration and the time interval between these two measurement points was very short (i.e., 3 months). Second, only students’ self-reported music grade at school was measured, although it is reasonable that students’ music performance outside of school also differs from their music performance at school because all students must learn music at school, irrespective of whether they like music or whether they have already acquired music skills in extracurricular activities, such as playing an instrument, singing in a choir, or dancing in a music club. Third, no data on children’s musical experience or demographics (e.g., whether they live in a single-income household or whether they have learning disabilities) were available. Further studies must therefore show whether the pattern of relations reported in this study would also be confounded by these or other variables (e.g., prior academic achievement, sex, and/or socioeconomic status; Guhn et al., 2020; Haddad & Heong, 2020). For instance, music education has been found to be more effective for students from a musically talented family (Wilson et al., 2012) or with better musical instrument accessibility at home (Young et al., 2014). Finally, this study focused on intrinsic values, although the EVT framework (Conley, 2012; Trautwein et al., 2012) suggests four different value factors (i.e., intrinsic value, attainment value, utility value, cost). Further research is therefore recommended to explore whether social and dimensional comparisons also influence these factors or whether the relations of these factors to achievement or other desirable outcomes are also mediated through students’ self-concepts.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations mentioned, this study adds to previous literature on the GI/E model by showing the following (novel) findings: (1) Social comparisons are strongly supported for both self-concepts and intrinsic values in music, mathematics, and verbal domains; (2) dimensional comparisons are mainly supported between academic domains but less supported across music and academic domains; (3) self-concepts mediate the relations between achievement and intrinsic values within domains; (4) verbal self-concept also mediates the relations between mathematics achievement and verbal intrinsic value, although (5) music self-concept also mediates the relations between verbal achievement and music intrinsic value. These findings highlight the great significance of social and dimensional comparisons for the formation of elementary school children’s self-concepts and intrinsic values as well as the significant mediating role of self-concepts in predicting children’s intrinsic values, even across music and academic domains.

	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	90% CI
Three-factor CFA model	326.076	132	0.863	0.841	0.080	[0.069, 0.091]
Six-factor CFA model	173.917	120	0.962	0.951	0.044	[0.029, 0.058]
GI/E model	229.767	156	0.957	0.942	0.045	[0.032, 0.057]
Mediation model	252.928	159	0.945	0.928	0.050	[0.038, 0.062]

	α	ICC	M (SD)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Mathematics self-concept (T2)	0.80	0.03	3.79 (0.88)	0.77***	0.19***	0.08	0.15	0.04	0.56***	0.30***	0.18**
2. Mathematics intrinsic value (T2)	0.89	0.01	3.67 (1.07)		0.05	0.25**	0.03	−0.02	0.36***	0.02	0.06
3. German self-concept (T2)	0.80	0.00	3.67 (0.95)			0.79***	0.52***	0.45***	0.23**	0.55***	0.29***
4. German intrinsic value (T2)	0.86	0.02	3.59 (0.98)				0.43***	0.44***	0.04	0.34***	0.23**
5. Music self-concept (T2)	0.84	0.02	3.49 (1.23)					0.88***	0.19*	0.29***	0.46***
6. Music intrinsic value (T2)	0.87	0.01	3.76 (1.10)						0.10	0.23**	0.36***
7. Mathematics achievement (T1)	–	0.00	2.46 (0.87)							0.61***	0.33***
8. German achievement (T1)	–	0.04	2.48 (0.74)								0.41***
9. Music achievement (T1)	–	0.01	2.08 (0.74)								–

	MSC	MIV	GSC	GIV	MUSC	MUIV
MACH	0.63*** (0.05)	0.45*** (0.06)	–0.12* (0.06)	–0.28** (0.06)	–0.01 (0.06)	–0.17* (0.07)
GACH	−0.09 (0.07)	–0.19** (0.07)	0.61*** (0.06)	0.50*** (0.06)	0.17** (0.06)	0.16* (0.07)
MUACH	0.03 (0.06)	0.11 (0.06)	0.10 (0.06)	0.17** (0.06)	0.46*** (0.05)	0.39*** (0.06)
R ²	0.35	0.17	0.36	0.26	0.31	0.19

	MIV	GIV	MUIV	MSC	GSC	MUSC
Standardized direct effects
MACH	0.07 (0.08)	–0.16 (0.11)	–0.01 (0.07)	0.60*** (0.10)	−0.19* (0.08)	−0.05 (0.10)
GACH	−0.29** (0.09)	−0.05 (0.07)	−0.05 (0.06)	−0.07 (0.11)	0.63*** (0.08)	0.17* (0.07)
MUACH	0.01 (0.05)	0.02 (0.07)	−0.04 (0.04)	0.01 (0.07)	0.12 (0.08)	0.42*** (0.09)
MSC	0.81*** (0.06)	0.03 (0.07)	–0.08 (0.09)	–	–	–
GSC	0.08 (0.07)	0.81*** (0.09)	0.11 (0.06)	–	–	–
MUSIC	−0.05 (0.06)	0.10 (0.07)	0.89*** (0.04)	–	–	–
Standardized indirect effects
MACH → MSC →	0.49*** (0.08)	0.02 (0.04)	–0.05 (0.06)	–	–	–
MACH → GSC →	−0.02 (0.02)	−0.15* (0.08)	−0.02 (0.01)	–	–	–
MACH → MUSIC →	0.00 (0.01)	−0.01 (0.01)	−0.04 (0.09)	–	–	–
GACH → MSC →	−0.05 (0.08)	−0.00 (0.01)	0.01 (0.01)	–	–	–
GACH → GSC →	0.05 (0.05)	0.51*** (0.09)	0.07 (0.04)	–	–	–
GACH → MUSIC →	−0.01 (0.01)	0.02 (0.01)	0.15* (0.06)	–	–	–
MUACH → MSC →	0.01 (0.06)	0.00 (0.00)	–0.00 (0.01)	–	–	–
MUACH → GSC →	0.01 (0.01)	0.10 (0.07)	0.01 (0.01)	–	–	–
MUACH → MUSIC →	−0.02 (0.05)	0.04 (0.03)	0.37*** (0.08)	–	–	–
R ²	0.64	0.63	0.78	0.32	0.35	0.24

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Annette Lohbeck

References

S. A.

Capraro

M. M.

(2011). Music-math integrated activities for elementary and middle school students. Education for All.

S. A.

Tillman

D. A.

Boren

Wang

(2014). Fostering elementary students’ mathematics disposition through music-mathematics integrated lessons. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 1–19. http://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/an.pdf

S. A.

Tillman

D. A.

Lesser

L. M.

(2018). The hidden musicality of math class: A transdisciplinary approach to mathematics education. In Jao

Radakovic

(Eds.), Transdisciplinarity in mathematics education (pp. 25–45). Springer.

Arens

A. K.

Preckel

(2018). Testing the internal/external frame of reference model with elementary school children: Extension to physical ability and intrinsic value. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.003

Arens

A. K.

Yeung

A. S.

Craven

R. G.

Hasselhorn

(2013). A short German version of the Self-Description Questionnaire I: Theoretical and empirical comparability. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 36(4), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.710503

Barroso

Ganley

C. M.

Hart

S. A.

Rogers

Clendinning

J. P.

(2019). The relative importance of math- and music-related cognitive and affective factors in predicting undergraduate music theory achievement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3518

Busse

Hennies

Kreutz

Roden

(2021). Learning grammar through singing? An intervention with EFL primary school learners. Learning and Instruction, 71, Article 101372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101372

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge Taylor & Francis.

Cabedo-Mas

Díaz-Gómez

(2013). Positive musical experiences in education: Music as a social praxis. Music Education Research, 15, 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.763780

10.

Campbell

Connell

Beegle

(2007). Adolescents’ expressed meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(3), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940705500304

11.

Carioti

Danelli

Guasti

M. T.

Gallucci

Perugini

Steca

Paulesu

(2019). Music education at school: Too little and too late? Evidence from a longitudinal study on music training in preadolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2704. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02704

12.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

13.

Conley

A. M.

(2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026042

14.

Cooper

P. K.

(2020). It’s all in your head: A meta-analysis on the effects of music training on cognitive measures in schoolchildren. International Journal of Music Education, 38(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761419881495

15.

Corrigall

K. A.

Trainor

L. J.

(2011). Associations between length of music training and reading skills in children. Music Perception, 29(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.147

16.

Craven

Marsh

Burnett

(2003, November). Breaking the self-concept enhancement conundrum: Re-conceptualising the next generation of self-concept enhancement research. Paper presented at NZARE AARE, Auckland, New Zealand.

17.

Crowther

G. J.

McFadden

Fleming

J. S.

Davis

(2016). Leveraging the power of music to improve science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1126001

18.

Degé

Schwarzer

(2011). The effect of a music program on phonological awareness in preschoolers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00124

19.

Degé

Schwarzer

(2018). The influence of an extended music curriculum at school on academic self-concept in 9- to 11-year-old children. Musicae Scientiae, 22(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864916688508

20.

Dörendahl

Scherer

Greiff

Martin

Niepel

(2021). Dimensional comparisons in the formation of domain-specific achievement goals. Motivation Science, 7(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000203

21.

dos Santos-Luiz

Mónico

L. S. M.

Almeida

L. S.

Coimbra

. (2016). Exploring the long-term associations between adolescents’ music training and academic achievement. Musicae Scientiae, 20(4), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864915623613

22.

Dumont

Syurina

E. V.

Feron

F. J. M.

van Hooren

(2017). Music interventions and child development: A critical review and further directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1694. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01694

23.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

24.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859

25.

Elpus

(2013). Is it the music or is it selection bias? A nationwide analysis of music and non-music students’ SAT scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413485601

26.

Frischen

Schwarzer

Degé

(2021). Music lessons enhance executive functions in 6- to 7-year-old children. Learning and Instruction, 74, Article 101442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021

27.

Gaspard

Wigfield

Jiang

Nagengast

Trautwein

Marsh

H. W.

(2018). Dimensional comparisons: How academic track students’ achievements are related to their expectancy and value beliefs across multiple domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.003

28.

Goetz

Frenzel

A. C.

Hall

N. C.

Pekrun

(2008). Antecedents of academic emotions: Testing the internal/external frame of reference model for academic enjoyment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 9–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.002

29.

Gordon

R. L.

Fehd

H. M.

McCandliss

B. D.

(2015). Does music training enhance literacy skills? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1777. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01777

30.

Guhn

Emerson

Gouzouasis

(2020). A population-level analysis of associations between school music participation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000376

31.

Guo

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

P. D.

Morin

A. J. S.

Dicke

(2017). Extending expectancy-value theory predictions of achievement and aspirations in science: Dimensional comparison processes and expectancy-by-value interactions. Learning and Instruction, 49, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.007

32.

Haag

Goetz

(2012). Mathe ist schwierig und Deutsch aktuell: Vergleichende Studie zur Charakterisierung von Schulfächern aus Schülersicht [Math is difficult and German up to date: Comparative study of characterizations of school subjects from students’ points-of-view]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 59, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2012.art03d

33.

Haddad

M. Z.

Heong

Y. M.

(2020). Music and education efficiency: A systematic review. Journal of Talent Development and Excellence, 12(1), 4665–4680.

34.

Hallam

(2010). The power of music: It’s impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658

35.

Harter

(2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

36.

Helm

Arens

A. K.

Möller

(2020). Perceived teacher unfairness and student motivation in math and German: An application of the generalized internal/external frame of reference model. Learning and Individual Differences, 81, Article 101891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101891

37.

Helm

Müller-Kalthoff

Nagy

Möller

(2016). Dimensional comparison theory: Perceived subject similarity impacts on students’ self-concepts. AERA Open, 2(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416650624

38.

Hogenes

Oers

B. V.

Diekstra

R. F. W.

(2014). The impact of music on child functioning. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 10(3), 312–336. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.135

39.

Hogenes

van Oers

Diekstra

R. F. W.

Sklad

(2016). The effects of music composition as a classroom activity on engagement in music education and academic and music achievement: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Music Education, 34(1), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415584296

40.

Holmes

Hallam

(2017). The impact of participation in music on learning mathematics. London Review of Education, 15(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.18546/lre.15.3.07

41.

Holochwost

S. J.

Propper

C. B.

Wolf

D. P.

Willoughby

M. T.

Fisher

K. R.

Kolacz

Volpe

V. V.

Jaffee

S. R.

(2017). Music education, academic achievement, and executive functions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000112

42.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

43.

Ilari

(2020). Longitudinal research on music education and child development: Contributions and challenges. Music & Science, 3, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204320937224

44.

Jansen

Schroeders

Lüdtke

Marsh

H. W.

(2015). Contrast and assimilation effects of dimensional comparisons in five subjects: An extension of the I/E model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1086–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000021

45.

Jaschke

A. C.

Honing

Scherder

E. J. A.

(2018). Longitudinal analysis of music education on executive functions in primary school children. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, Article 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00103

46.

Jones

A. S.

Eshelman

White

Kemp

A. H.

Howard

(2020). The impact of a music education program on the emotional wellbeing of elementary students in a rural community: A mixed methods investigation. European Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 4, Article 8.

47.

Linnavalli

Putkinen

Lipsanen

Huotilainen

Tervaniemi

(2018). Music playschool enhances children’s linguistic skills. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 8767. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27126-5

48.

Lohbeck

(2019). Social and dimensional comparison effects on academic self-concepts and self-perceptions of effort in elementary school children. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1527018

49.

Lohbeck

Möller

(2017). Social and dimensional comparison effects on math and reading self-concepts of elementary school children. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.013

50.

Marsh

H. W.

(1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312023001129

51.

Marsh

H. W.

(1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.623

52.

Marsh

H. W.

Abduljabbar

A. S.

Parker

Morin

A. J. S.

Abdelfattah

Nagengast

Möller

Abu-Hillal

M. M.

(2015). The internal/external frame of reference model: Age-cohort and cross-national differences in paradoxical relations between TIMSS mathematics and science achievement, self-concept, and intrinsic motivation. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 168–202. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549453

53.

Marsh

H. W.

Byrne

B. M.

Shavelson

R. J.

(1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.366

54.

Marsh

H. W.

Lüdtke

Nagengast

Trautwein

Abduljabbar

A. S.

Abdelfattah

Jansen

(2015). Dimensional comparison theory: Paradoxical relations between self-beliefs and achievements in multiple domains. Learning and Instruction, 35, 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.005

55.

Mehr

S. A.

Schachner

Katz

R. C.

Spelke

E. S.

(2013). Two randomized trials provide no consistent evidence for nonmusical cognitive benefits of brief preschool music enrichment. PLOS ONE, 8(12), Article e82007. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082007

56.

Möller

Marsh

H. W.

(2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review, 120(3), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032459

57.

Möller

Müller-Kalthoff

Helm

Nagy

Marsh

H. W.

(2015). The generalized internal/external frame of reference model: An extension to dimensional comparison theory. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v4i2.16

58.

Möller

Zimmermann

Köller

(2014). The reciprocal internal/external frame of reference model using grades and test scores. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12047

59.

Möller

Zitzmann

Helm

Machts

Wolff

(2020). A meta-analysis of relations between achievement and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 376–419. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919354

60.

Moreno

Marques

Santos

Castro

S. L.

Besson

(2009). Musical training influences linguistic abilities in 8-year-old children: More evidence for brain plasticity. Cerebral Cortex, 19(3), 712–723. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn120

61.

Morin

A. J.

Scalas

L. F.

Vispoel

(2017). The music self-perception inventory: Development of parallel forms A and B. Psychology of Music, 45(4), 530–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616669426

62.

Morin

A. J. S.

Scalas

L. F.

Vispoel

Marsh

H. W.

Wen

(2016). The Music Self-Perception Inventory: Development of a short form. Psychology of Music, 44(5), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615592690

63.

Moritz

Yampolsky

Papadelis

Thomson

Wolf

(2013). Links between early rhythm skills, musical training, and phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 739–769. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

64.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2017). Mplus Version 8 [Statistical software].

65.

Niepel

Brunner

Preckel

(2014). The longitudinal interplay of students’ academic self-concepts and achievements within and across domains: Replicating and extending the reciprocal internal/external frame of reference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1170–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036307

66.

Ozernov-Palchik

Wolf

Patel

A. D.

(2018). Relationships between early literacy and nonlinguistic rhythmic processes in kindergartners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 167, 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.009

67.

Peynircioglu

Z. F.

Durgunoglu

A. Y.

Úney-Küsefoglu

(2002). Phonological awareness and musical aptitude. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00159

68.

Pretorius

(2017). A metaphysical and neuropsychological assessment of musical tones to affect the brain, relax the mind and heal the body. Verbum et Ecclesia, 38(1), 1–9. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-7e5a86ca0

69.

Rauscher

F. H.

Hinton

S. C.

(2011). Music instruction and its diverse extra-musical benefits. Music Perception, 29(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2011.29.2.215

70.

Roden

Kreutz

Bongard

(2012). Effects of a school-based instrumental music program on verbal and visual memory in primary school children: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 572. https://doi.org/10.2289/ppsyg.2012.00572

71.

Sakka

L. S.

Juslin

P. N.

(2018). Emotion regulation with music in depressed and non-depressed individuals: Goals, strategies, and mechanisms. Music & Science, 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204318755023

72.

Sala

Gobet

(2020). Cognitive and academic benefits of music training with children: A multilevel meta-analysis. Memory & Cognition, 48(8), 1429–1441. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2

73.

Sala

Gobet

(2017). When the music’s over. Does music skill transfer to children’s and young adolescents’ cognitive and academic skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 20, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.005

74.

Scalas

L. F.

Marsh

H. W.

Vispoel

Morin

A. J. S.

Wen

(2017). Music self-concept and self-esteem formation in adolescence: A comparison between individual and normative models of importance within a latent framework. Psychology of Music, 45(6), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616672317

75.

Schellenberg

E. G.

Weiss

(2013). Music and cognitive abilities. In Deutsch

(Ed.), The psychology of music (3rd ed., pp. 499–550). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381460-9.00012-2

76.

Schneider

Sparfeldt

J. R.

(2020). Academic competence and affect self-concepts in elementary school students: Social and dimensional comparisons. Social Psychology of Education, 23(1), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09532-3

77.

Schurtz

I. M.

Pfost

Nagengast

Artelt

(2014). Impact of social and dimensional comparisons on student’s mathematical and English subject-interest at the beginning of secondary school. Learning and Instruction, 34, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.001

78.

Seifried

(2006). Exploring the outcomes of rock and popular music instruction in high school guitar class: A case study. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406065478

79.

Shavelson

R. J.

Hubner

J. J.

Stanton

G. C.

(1976). Self-concept—Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407–441. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046003407

80.

Slater

Strait

Skoe

O’Connell

Thompson

Kraus

(2014). Longitudinal effects of group music instruction on literacy skills in low-income children. PLOS ONE, 9(11), Article e113383. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113383

81.

Tierney

Kraus

(2013). Music training for the development of reading skills. Progress in Brain Research, 207, 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63327-9.00008-4

82.

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Marsh

H. W.

Köller

Baumert

(2006). Tracking, grading, and student motivation: Using group composition and status to predict self-concept and interest in ninth grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.788

83.

Trautwein

Marsh

H. W.

Nagengast

Lüdtke

Nagy

Jonkmann

(2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy-value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470

84.

Vaiouli

Grimmet

(2020). Enhancing engagement and early literacy through music: Perspectives from head start teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(14), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP/11-14-02

85.

van der Westhuizen

Arens

A. K.

Greiff

Fischbach

Niepel

. (2022). The generalized internal/external frame of reference model with academic self-concepts, interests, and anxieties in students from different language backgrounds. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, Article 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102037

86.

Vaughn

(2000). Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft-claimed relationship. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333641

87.

Weidinger

A. F.

Steinmayr

Spinath

(2019). Ability self-concept formation in elementary school: No dimensional comparison effects across time. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000695

88.

West

(2013). Motivating music students: A review of the literature. Update, 31, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123312473611

89.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Möller

(2020). How dimensional comparisons help to understand linkages between expectancies, values, performance, and choice. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 657–680. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09524-2

90.

Wilson

S. J.

Lusher

Martin

C. L.

Rayner

McLachlan

(2012). Intersecting factors lead to absolute pitch acquisition that is maintained in a “fixed do” environment. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2012.29.3.285

91.

M. K.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

I. T.

Morin

A. J. S.

Abduljabbar

A. S.

(2013). The internal/external frame of reference of academic self-concept: Extension to a foreign language and the role of language of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031333

92.

Young

L. N.

Cordes

Winner

(2014). Arts involvement predicts academic achievement only when the child has a musical instrument. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 849–861. http://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785477

93.

Zeromskaite

(2014). The potential role of music in second language learning: A review article. Journal of European Psychology Students, 5(3), 78–88. http://doi.org/10.5334/jeps.ci

Social and dimensional comparison effects on children’s music self-concept and intrinsic value: An extension of the generalized internal/external frame of reference model to the music domain

Abstract

Keywords

Marsh/Shavelson self-concept model

Dimensional Comparison Theory (DCT)

Evidence for the GI/E model in elementary schools

Research on music education and music psychology

Mediating effects of self-concepts

Objectives and hypotheses

Method

Sample

Procedures

Measures

Self-concepts

Intrinsic values

Achievement

Data analysis

Results

Factor analysis

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Research question 1

Research question 2

Discussion

Implications

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References