Factors determining satisfaction with online piano lessons for young beginner students

Abstract

The use of online teaching for music performance education has increased dramatically in recent years, especially among young (5- to 9-year-old) beginner students. This change of modality has potential implications for all aspects of the learning process, including the satisfaction of all involved. The purpose of this study was to determine the most significant factors that contribute to satisfaction with online piano lessons according to piano teachers (n = 104) and parents of children who had experienced online piano lessons (n = 45). Two surveys were designed for both groups, and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify those variables with the strongest relationships with satisfaction. Results suggested that the most significant factor contributing to satisfaction with online piano lessons, as perceived by teachers and parents, was student independence. The second most significant factor, according to the teachers, was parental involvement in online lessons, while their involvement was not significant according to parents’ ratings. The third highest ranked factor according to teachers was students’ skill acquisition, whereas for parents, student motivation was positively correlated with their satisfaction with online piano lessons. In addition, better internet connectivity and teacher confidence in using technology contributed to higher satisfaction levels.

Keywords

independence online music lessons satisfaction synchronous learning young piano students

Introduction

Online music education has attracted the attention of teachers and researchers since the early 2000s due to increased internet accessibility, advancements in digital technology (i.e., varied videoconferencing software, improved audio, further developments of technological devices), and a growing interest in flexible remote-learning opportunities (Dammers, 2009; Maki, 2001; Riley, 2009). However, during the global pandemic lockdowns (2020–2022), online music teaching was transformed from being an optional or supplementary mode of delivery to becoming an essential facet of music education.

Given the continued shift towards online education, research has identified several key factors of successful online music education, including: student independence (Daugvilaite, 2021; Dumlavwalla, 2017; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), skill acquisition (Dumlavwalla, 2017; Okay, 2021; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), parental involvement (Calderón-Garrido & Gustems-Carnicer, 2021; Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Papatzikis, 2021), motivation (Daugvilaite, 2021; Vaizman, 2022; Wieser & Müller, 2022), prior experience with online lessons (Pozo et al., 2022), teachers’ confidence in technology (Merrick & Joseph, 2023), and asynchronous learning (Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Apostolis & Ververis, 2020). While such factors have been explored individually, this article will report on how they collectively influence satisfaction with online piano lessons for young beginner students, as perceived by their teachers and parents. Students were not included in this stage of the project, as the survey focused on gathering adult perspectives that could provide evaluative insight into the online piano lesson experience. Some factors were examined only within one participant group, depending on their relevance; for example, skill acquisition was assessed by teachers, whereas student motivation and asynchronous learning were explored through parent responses.

In this study, satisfaction referred to teachers’ and parents’ overall evaluation of online piano lessons for young beginners, including their enjoyment of the format, perceived student progress, willingness to continue long term, and views on the value and emotional demands of online teaching compared with face-to-face lessons. There is a notable lack of research in online music education specifically focusing on young beginner instrumental students.

Student age

While online instrumental teaching has been extensively studied, there has been comparatively little research focusing on very young beginner students in the early stages of instrumental learning.While some studies have explored one-to-one online instrumental teaching, the youngest participants in these investigations were typically aged 9 and above (Dammers, 2009; Dumlavwalla, 2017; ; Kruse et al., 2013; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), leaving a gap in our understanding of how children younger than the age of 9 experience online lessons. Young learners may require substantial support—even in face-to-face instrumental lessons—with specific tasks such as maintaining proper sitting and playing posture, locating bar numbers, or following notes on the score (Dye, 2016; Hallam, 2006; McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002; Welch et al., 2011). A significant body of research has concluded that online lessons can be highly challenging for beginners due to the lack of physical presence and teacher challenges in developing rapport with students (Duffy & Healey, 2017; Dumlavwalla, 2017; Koutsoupidou, 2014). Others have found that beginners’ “lack of foundational knowledge” prevents them from seeing online learning as positively as more experienced students (Salvador et al., 2021, p. 206). Moreover, there is a lack of research that examines how factors such as student independence, skill acquisition, and motivation collectively relate to teacher and parent satisfaction with young children’s online music education. Thus, this study’s central focus was on teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of how young beginner students aged 5- to 9-years-old experienced online piano lessons.

Student independence

Studies on face-to-face teaching have underscored student independence as a pivotal factor in student progress when learning to play an instrument (Kupers et al., 2014; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011; McPherson et al., 2019; Roesler, 2017). In this context, independence refers to a student’s ability to engage in learning tasks—such as following instructions or solving musical problems—without continuous teacher guidance. Given the increasing prevalence of online lessons, it is important to investigate whether this factor plays a similarly significant role in the online learning environment, so as to determine whether teacher and parent satisfaction is more closely tied to students’ independence in the absence of immediate support and physical teacher presence.

Previous research has shown that students often become more independent in online music lessons over time, due to the teacher’s physical absence (e.g., Daugvilaite, 2021; Dumlavwalla, 2017; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013). For example, Dumlavwalla (2017) observed that her students began annotating their scores independently during lessons because their teacher was not physically present to do it for them. Pike and Shoemaker (2015) concluded that students became more independent and they could “more readily critique their own playing, listen to themselves more intentionally and more accurately assess their skills” (p. 14). However, the impact of student independence—both at the outset and as it develops during online piano lessons—on teacher and parent satisfaction remains unexplored. This study aimed to determine whether greater independence was associated with higher satisfaction.

Skill acquisition

Skill acquisition in music encompasses mastering specific skills such as rhythm, sight-reading, tone production, and posture adjustments through self-reliant strategies (Hallam, 1998; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011). In online settings, where teacher physical presence and immediate verbal and nonverbal feedback are limited, fostering student skill acquisition becomes a more complex task. Developing rhythmic accuracy and maintaining a steady tempo are widely recognised as foundational components of musical skill acquisition (e.g., Davidson & Correia, 2002; Matsuo & Sakaguchi, 2024; Vigl et al., 2024). To foster this ability during in-person lessons, teachers typically count or clap in time with the student, a strategy that is especially beneficial for young beginners who rely on external cues to develop an internal pulse (McPherson & Gabrielsson, 2002). In online environments, latency disrupts these interactions, limiting immediate rhythmic guidance (Dumlavwalla, 2017; Pike, 2017a). Another crucial skill in instrumental learning is sight-reading (Pike, 2017b). While Pike and Shoemaker (2013) demonstrated positive results from students who studied sight-reading online, this may be more challenging in remote settings—especially for beginners—due to limited opportunities for real-time modelling, shared visual focus, and immediate correction. In face-to-face lessons, teachers can point to notes, track eye movements, and give instant cues, all of which are harder to replicate online. In addition, some past studies have addressed sound quality in the context of online lessons, in terms of teachers not being able to judge dynamic contrasts (Dumlavwalla, 2017) or students “losing their tone” (Okay, 2021, p. 207).

Furthermore, developing correct posture and hand position is a foundational part of instrumental skill acquisition. Studies such as those by Dumlavwalla (2017), Biasutti et al. (2021), Okay (2021), and Vaizman (2022) note that online formats limit teachers’ ability to provide physical adjustments, which can hinder the technique development of beginners without in-person guidance. Since research has highlighted the unique challenges of developing skill acquisition in virtual settings, it remains a key factor in understanding teachers’ satisfaction with online piano lessons. In the present study, this variable was assessed only by teachers, as parents may lack the expertise to evaluate students’ technical skill development.

Parental involvement

A harmonious parent–student–teacher communication triangle has been identified as essential for defining successful music attainment in face-to-face teaching (Creech & Hallam, 2011; Upitis et al., 2017). On one hand, a positive impact and sense of connectedness has been reported when parents participate in their child’s online lessons by making music together or recording videos (Calderón-Garrido & Gustems-Carnicer, 2021; Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Papatzikis, 2021). On the other, parental involvement, such as sitting in on the lesson or intervening, has also been found to have a negative impact on a child’s development in online music lessons (Cheng & Lam, 2021). Parents’ physical presence and communication with the teacher—during or after lessons—may shape how both groups evaluate the effectiveness and satisfaction of the online learning experience. Therefore, it is crucial to define the significance of parental physical involvement during lessons, specifically in online lessons with young beginner students, considering their independence, skill acquisition, and motivational levels.

Motivation

According to Self-Determination Theory (Ryan, 2023), motivation exists on a continuum, ranging from intrinsic motivation (engaging in activities for inherent satisfaction) to extrinsic motivation (driven by external rewards or pressures), with varying degrees of internalisation. A substantial body of research in music education has demonstrated that motivation and self-regulated learning are commonly associated with successful instrumental learning (Comeau et al., 2019; McPherson & Zimmerman, 2011; Upitis et al., 2017). The importance of student motivation may be amplified in remote online music education settings, as Lee (2021) advises:

in contrast with the traditional physical class, distance learning requires a stronger motivation from the learner. [. . .] Thus, the instructor has to be sensitive to influential factors such as intelligence, personality, and the culture of the student for an insight into developing one’s learning interest to a greater extent. (p. 1359)

Several studies reported lower intrinsic motivation among music students during the COVID-19 pandemic, attributing this to factors such as isolation, uncertainty, and fewer performance opportunities (Antonini Philippe et al., 2020; Spiro et al., 2021; Wieser & Müller, 2022). However, other studies during the COVID-19 pandemic assumed that students were motivated to practise because they had more free time (Daugvilaite, 2021; Vaizman, 2022). As motivation in online music lessons following the pandemic remains underexplored, this study examined how student motivation, as observed by parents, related to (parents’) satisfaction with online piano lessons. This variable was assessed only in the parent group, given their daily involvement and familiarity with their child’s engagement and responses.

Technological factors

Research on synchronous online music education (e.g., Johnson, 2017; Joseph & Lennox, 2021; King et al., 2019a; Onderdijk et al., 2021; Salvador et al., 2021; Vaizman, 2022) consistently highlights technological challenges, including latency issues, poor audiovisual quality, and call disruptions across commonly used platforms (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Skype). Latency makes it impossible to play together in time, accompany, or sing simultaneously (Dammers, 2009; King et al., 2019a; Koutsoupidou, 2014; Maki, 2001; Riley, 2009; Apostolis & Ververis, 2020). Consequently, it is essential to exaine how specific technological issues (e.g., connectivity issues) influence teacher and parent satisfaction with online music lessons.

Laptops, tablets, and smartphones remain the most commonly used devices in online music classes, with videoconferencing solutions such as Zoom, Skype, and Google Meet being the most utilised (Aaberg, 2023; Martínez-Hernández, 2022). However, no research has specifically examined parents’ experiences (of children younger than 18 taking online music lessons) in terms of the types of devices and platforms used at home and how these shape the learning environment. This study therefore examined the prevalence of online teaching among teachers and parents, whether they encountered technological issues, and how these factors impacted satisfaction.

Asynchronous teaching and learning

Asynchronous online music education—instructional methods where students engage with pre-recorded video lessons, tutorials, and other digital resources that they can access at their own pace, without real-time interaction with the teacher—has been explored in research in recent years (Seddon & Biasutti, 2009; Shoemaker & van Stam, 2010). During the pandemic, some aspects of asynchronous teaching, such as teachers sending video tutorials to their students, became a lifeline to many teachers due to limitations of and the unreliablility of technological factors to support synchronous teaching (Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Apostolis & Ververis, 2020). This study examines the role of asynchronicity further to ascertain the impact of such approaches on complementing synchronous online teaching, particularly from the perspective of parents—the only group surveyed on this variable, as they were best positioned to assess its impact on their satisfaction with their children who were taking online piano lessons.

Prior online teaching and learning experience and teacher confidence using technology

Teachers with prior experience in online teaching before the pandemic demonstrated greater satisfaction with online teaching and versatility in adjusting their methods to the challenges of remote teaching during and after the lockdowns, and utilising information and communication technology (ICT) to support their teaching in more efficient ways (Pozo et al., 2022). On the contrary, teachers without experience with online teaching before the pandemic often maintained traditional face-to-face approaches or simplified their methods (Pozo et al., 2021, 2022). This raises important questions about the relationship between teachers’ satisfaction with online lessons and their previous experience with digital teaching formats. Merrick and Joseph (2023) found that music teachers with higher technological confidence reported greater satisfaction and showed more adaptive strategies, stronger student engagement, and greater willingness to use digital tools post-pandemic. This suggests that teachers’ prior experience and technological confidence may be key variables in predicting teacher and parent satisfaction with online piano lessons, especially when teaching young beginners.

Research focus

Existing research presents conflicting views—some suggest online lessons are effective and sufficient (Johnson, 2022; Pike & Shoemaker, 2013), whereas others argue they are not feasible for young beginners (Rucsanda et al., 2021; Salvador et al., 2021; Apostolis & Ververis, 2020), highlighting the need for further investigation.

This research addressed a number of research questions explored through mixed methods, of which the findings pertaining to two questions are reported in this article:

To what extent do student independence, skill acquisition, parental support, and student motivation predict satisfaction with online lessons as perceived by teachers and parents?

What additional factors influence the online piano lesson experience for young beginner students as perceived by teachers and parents?

By examining these variables and their correlation with teacher and parent’ satisfaction with online piano lessons for young beginners, this study aimed to make a meaningful contribution to the field of online music education.

Methodology and methods

Project design

The project employed an explanatory mixed-methods research design, incorporating a survey in the first phase and semi-structured interviews in the second phase. The mixed-methods approach provided a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with online lessons. However, only the quantitative results from the first phase will be reported in this article. In online music education research, surveys—particularly during or after the pandemic—have captured teachers’, students’, and parents’ experiences with the shift to online lessons (Onderdijk et al., 2021; Rucsanda et al., 2021; Salvador et al., 2021; Apostolis & Ververis, 2020).

The study’s survey component included two surveys, one designed for teachers and another for parents whose children had experienced online piano lessons. These different surveys enabled both perspectives to be examined, with teachers able to answer questions about piano teaching techniques and parents able to answer questions about their child’s motivation. The parents’ questionnaire was randomised and not linked to specific teachers, as it aimed to capture general parental perspectives rather than focusing on individual teachers’ approaches or strategies to online teaching. An extensive literature review revealed that no existing validated questionnaires could effectively address the aforementioned research questions and encompass all the factors this study aimed to investigate. In addition, existing surveys were often too lengthy to capture all necessary variables in one instrument. Following Wieser and Müller (2022), who combined statements from multiple surveys, a new survey was created with original statements rather than adapting existing ones. To enhance its validity, the survey was piloted with teachers (n = 8) and parents (n = 5) before its official implementation. The pilot survey was conducted to test the survey instrument (Williamon et al., 2021) with data generated through the pilot excluded from the main study.

Procedure

After receiving approval from the Royal College of Music Ethics Committee, the survey was published between January 18 and July 10, 2024. It was distributed internationally online by posting on teachers’ forums on social media and sending emails to personal contacts and professional organisations. The survey generated 355 responses: 226 from teachers, 88 from parents, and 22 who identified as both. Participants identifying as both teachers and parents were considered to be equally representative of both groups and were therefore directed to the teachers’ survey under the assumption that this would be a more challenging population to recruit. However, by March 21, it was apparent that the parent numbers were falling short of targets, therefore those identifying as both were after this point directed to the parents’ survey. Ultimately, seven participants who identified as both completed the teacher survey, and three completed the parent survey. All responses below 82% completion were removed in the Excel spreadsheet before transferring the data to Jamovi software for multiple regression analysis, as 18% of questions on each survey related to technology and demographics, which did not contribute to the primary analysis of this survey. After cleaning the data, the final sample comprised 104 teachers and 45 parents.

Data analysis

Quantitative data generated through the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics (on Excel software) and multiple regression analysis (on Jamovi analysis software) due to its ability to assess the independent contribution of each predictor variable to the dependent variable, while accounting for the influence of other variables (Cohen et al., 2017). In online music education research, Wieser and Müller (2022) employed multiple regression analysis to compare students’ motivation and satisfaction with their basic psychological needs. While their study aligns with this research, the present study incorporated additional variables based on the literature review.

The choice of latent variables was informed by theoretical considerations and the need to capture dimensions of student independence, skill acquisition, motivation, and parental involvement that could not be measured directly using existing standardised instruments. In this study, each latent variable was derived using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to ensure construct validity and factor loadings were examined to confirm that observed indicators aligned well with the underlying construct. The latent variables in this survey were as follows:

Student independence (both teacher and parent surveys): Statements supporting independence in music education theories, such as students’ ability to stay on task, annotate scores independently, ask questions, or respond to teacher feedback. This latent variable was constructed using a combination of existing independence statements tailored to the context of the online piano lesson.

Skill acquisition (teacher survey only): Determined by the extent to which teachers felt they needed to support their youngest students in technical aspects such as sight-reading, rhythm, pulse, posture, or pedalling.

Parental involvement (both teacher and parent surveys): Defined by responses on how and how often parents were involved in online piano lessons, that is, whether they sat in on lessons, took notes, or communicated with the teacher via text or email between lessons. Items were adapted from prior studies on parental involvement in education.

Student motivation (parent survey only): Addressed to parents as best positioned to observe whether their child was motivated due to a love of music, deadlines, or peer influence. This variable did not distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Comeau et al., 2019; Ryan, 2023; Wieser & Müller, 2022), focusing instead on the overall level of motivation.

Satisfaction (both teacher and parent surveys): This dependent variable was derived from a combination of Likert-type-scale questions with statements such as if they enjoyed teaching young students online or if they would teach them long term. Respondents also indicated their satisfaction with online piano lessons on a scale from 0 to 10. In the parents’ survey, additional items explored student experiences, such as whether they looked forward to lessons or complained about them, which only parents could reliably report.

To ensure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was performed to test each variable’s internal reliability to ensure that each statement from the Likert-type scale referred “to a single underlying construct” (Williamon et al., 2021, p. 376). According to Cohen et al. (2017, p. 774), >0.90 is very highly reliable and <0.60 is unacceptably low reliability. All tests conducted in both surveys fell within these two categories, with Teacher Satisfaction being the highest (0.900) and Student Motivation being the lowest (0.603).

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate latent variables in the teachers’ and parents’ surveys. All factor loadings were significant in the teachers’ survey (p < .001), with standardised estimates ranging from 0.933 to 0.446, indicating strong to moderate associations. Model fit indices confirmed a good fit (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.935, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.926, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.0563). However, in the parents’ survey, some factors, particularly Motivation and Parental Involvement, showed weaker or non-significant loadings (e.g., Parental Involvement E = 0.1702, p = .353), and overall model fit indices were below acceptable thresholds (CFI = .639, TLI = 0.594, RMSEA = 0.140). As the teachers’ survey demonstrated a strong model fit, the weaker results in the parents’ survey were attributed to the smaller sample size, which likely led to reduced stability in parameter estimates and higher standard errors.

Respondents

The teacher survey (n = 104 total with four missing demographic data) reported the following characteristics: 84% female, 12% male, 1% non-binary, and 3% undisclosed, with a mean age of 46.4 years (range: 22–80, SD = 14.2). Most held advanced degrees (58%), followed by bachelor’s degrees (31%), vocational qualifications (4%), and other (6%). Employment status showed 55% working full-time and 38% part-time. While this survey reached an international cohort among teacher participants, the majority of responses came from the United Kingdom, with 53.1% of the total. The United States had 15 counts, contributing 15.3% of the total.

In the parent survey (n = 45 total with four missing demographic data), 85% were female, 12.5% male, and 2.5% undisclosed, with a mean age of 46.1 years (range: 33–58, SD = 6.10). Most had advanced degrees (58.5%), followed by bachelor’s degrees (31.7%). Employment status showed 56.1% full-time and 26.8% part-time. Most respondents were from the United Kingdom (68.3%), followed by Lithuania (22%), and Australia (7.3%).

Results

Current trends

All respondents were asked when they experienced online piano teaching/learning—before, during, or after the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed an increase in teachers offering online lessons and parents of piano students choosing them after the pandemic compared with before. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate when respondents experienced online teaching, showcasing the trends of teaching online versus face-to-face during the three periods. “Exclusively” refers to exclusively teaching online, whereas “never” refers to never teaching online.

Figure 1.

Teachers’ Reported Access and Use of Online Teaching Modes for Lessons.

Figure 2.

Parents’ Reported Access and Use of Online Teaching Modes for Lessons.

The frequency distribution from the teachers’ survey (Figure 1) revealed that 76.0% of the teachers never taught online before 2020, 18.3% occasionally offered online lessons, and 5.7% taught exclusively or mainly online (exclusively 3.8%; mainly 1.9%). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant shift towards online teaching, as reflected in 89.4% of respondents who taught exclusively online during the pandemic, 8.7% who occasionally offered online lessons, and 1.9% who discontinued teaching or did not teach online. However, after the COVID-19 pandemic, teaching practices diversified: the majority (56.7%) offered online lessons occasionally (also categorised as hybrid mode), 23.1% moved exclusively to face-to-face teaching (a new measure reflecting the choice that teachers and parents had after the lockdowns), 19.2% continued teaching exclusively online, and 1.0% discontinued teaching. This indicated an overall increase in teachers moving their teaching exclusively online or offering hybrid lessons.

Parents (Figure 2) responded that most (75.6%) had never had their children attend piano lessons online before the pandemic, 13.3% had online lessons occasionally, 4.4% had lessons online exclusively, and 6.7% started learning piano during or after the pandemic. As expected, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority (93.3%) transitioned to online lessons, with only 2.2% not participating in online lessons and 4.4% starting piano lessons after the pandemic began. (Parents were not asked to specify whether lessons were frequent or occasional during the pandemic.) After the pandemic, the majority of parents (68.6%) indicated that their children had returned to face-to-face lessons, whether at a music school, the teacher’s home, or with the teacher visiting their home. A smaller percentage of parents (11.8%) continued with online lessons exclusively, whereas 9.8% had online lessons occasionally as part of a hybrid mode (a combination of online and in-person), and another 9.8% discontinued piano lessons altogether. Notably, there was an increase in the number of parents of piano students opting for online or hybrid piano lessons since the pandemic.

Difficulties with online piano learning

As this project focused on young beginner students, teachers were asked whether they encountered any children aged 5 to 9 who struggled while taking online piano lessons. A significant majority, 76.0% (79 respondents), reported encountering students who were struggling while taking piano lessons online, whereas 24.0% (25 respondents) reported that none of their students struggled. This suggests that most teachers encountered difficulties teaching young students online, perhaps reducing teachers’ satisfaction with online piano lessons.

Use of technology

According to teachers, the technological setup for online piano lessons was diverse, with the use of various devices reported. The most frequently used device was the laptop, accounting for 23.5% of the total, followed by tablets or iPads at 19.6% and mobile phones or iPhones at 16.4%. Other notable devices included USB microphones (10.0%), USB cameras (8.5%), and computers (7.8%). Less commonly used devices included MIDI connections (2.5%). Peripheral accessories, such as iPad stands (0.7% usage) and large screens, ring lights, ethernet cables, stereo speakers, headsets, and microphones (0.4% usage each), were also reported. The most commonly used device among parents was the tablet or iPad, which accounted for 34.9% of the total. This was followed by laptops, used by 25.8%, and mobile phones or iPhones, used by 19.7%.

A descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of connectivity issues among respondents. A small percentage of teachers (3.0%) reported always experiencing connectivity issues, 23.2% reported often experiencing them, and 13.1% of respondents faced connectivity issues half of the time. Most teachers (58.6%) experienced connectivity issues sometimes, whereas only 2.0% never encountered them. Among parents, 13.6% often experienced connectivity issues, whereas 4.5% faced them about half the time. A significant majority, 65.9%, experienced connectivity issues sometimes, and 15.9% were not aware of any connectivity issues.

Regarding videoconferencing software used (Figures 3 and 4), Zoom was reported as the most used platform among 37.9% of teachers. This was followed by FaceTime, used by 21.1%, and Skype, used by 15.3%. Facebook Messenger and Microsoft Teams were used by 7.9% and 6.8% of respondents, respectively (Figure 3). According to parents (Figure 4), Zoom was the most popular platform as well, used by 44.3% of respondents. This was followed by Skype, which was used by 19.7% of respondents, and FaceTime and Microsoft Teams, each used by 13.1%. Facebook Messenger was used by 6.6% of respondents, whereas WhatsApp and Viber were used by 1.6%.

Figure 3.

Videoconferencing Software Used by Teachers.

Figure 4.

Videoconferencing Software Used by Students for Online Lessons Reported by Parents.

Finally, we examined how often teachers recorded lessons or made videos for learning purposes that they shared with parents, as reported by both teachers and parents. Only 6.0% of teachers said they always sent video recordings, whereas 9.0% sent them often, and 10.0% did so about half the time. The majority of respondents sent video recordings less frequently, with 37.0% sending them sometimes and 38.0% never sending them. On the parents’ side, 6.8% reported always receiving video recordings, whereas 2.3% received them often. Another 6.8% received video recordings about half the time. A significant portion, 27.3%, received video recordings sometimes, indicating a moderate level of adoption. However, the majority (56.8%) never received video recordings from their teachers.

Factors determining satisfaction with online piano lessons

The regression analysis from the teachers’ survey (Table 1) showed a strong and significant model fit (F_3,99 = 27.5, p < .001, R = .675, R² = .455) where 45.5% of the variance in Teacher Satisfaction was accounted for by the model. The model included three significant predictors: Skill Acquisition, Student Independence, and Parental Involvement. Correlations between the variables were below r = .80, thus showing acceptable levels of multicollinearity.

Table 1.

Multiple Regression Analysis, Teachers’ Survey: Model Coefficients—Teacher’s Satisfaction.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p
Intercept	–0.827	0.422	–1.96	.053
Skill Acquisition	0.397	0.112	3.54	<.001
Student Independence	0.588	0.118	4.97	<.001
Parental Involvement	0.412	0.102	4.06	<.001

The variable Student Independence was the strongest predictor (b = 0.588, β = 0.118, t = 4.97, p < .001), followed by Parental Involvement (b = 0.412, β = .102, t = 4.06, p < .001) and Skill Acquisition (b = 0.397, β = 0.112, t = 3.54, p < .001). These results indicated that all three predictors significantly contributed to Teacher Satisfaction, with Student Independence having the most substantial effect.

The regression analysis from the parents’ survey (Table 2) revealed a moderately strong model fit (F_3,99 = 11.7, p < .001, R = .679, R² = .461) where 46.1% of the variance in parents’ satisfaction was accounted for by the model. The model included three predictors: Student Independence, Parental Involvement, and Student Motivation. Correlations between the variables were below r = .80, thus showing acceptable levels of multicollinearity.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Analysis, Parents’ Survey: Model Coefficients—Parent’s satisfaction.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p
Intercept	1.09327	0.452	2.4201	.020
Student Independence	0.50228	0.132	3.8058	<.001
Parental Involvement	–0.00880	0.100	–0.0876	.931
Student Motivation	0.23744	0.163	1.4557	.153

The variable Student Independence was the strongest predictor (b = 0.502, β = 0.132, t = 3.806, p < .001), followed by Student Motivation, which was not as significant as Student Independence, but showed a positive trend (b = 0.237, β = .163, t = 1.456, p < .153). Parental Involvement had no substantial impact on Parent Satisfaction in this model (b = –0.009, β = .100, t = –0.088, p < .931). These results suggested that while Student Independence significantly contributed to Parent Satisfaction with online lessons, Student Motivation showed a positive but nonsignificant trend, and Parental Involvement had no substantial effect.

When additional factors were added to the original regression analysis (Table 3), the three main variables retained the same significance as before. The additional factors, such as being “somewhat” confident with technology (compared with being “very” confident), negatively predicted teacher satisfaction (b =−0.5778, β = 0.278, t =−2.0784, p = .041), suggesting that confidence in technology use may have played a role in how satisfied teachers felt. Issues such as connectivity and prior online teaching experience did not seem to influence Teacher Satisfaction significantly in this model.

Table 3.

Additional multiple regression analysis, teachers’ survey: Model Coefficients—Teacher’s Satisfaction.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p
Intercept ^a	–0.8640	0.846	–1.0212	.310
Skill Acquisition	0.2772	0.122	2.2762	.025
Student Independence	0.5409	0.128	4.2189	<.001
Parental Involvement	0.3852	0.113	3.4049	.001
Connectivity issues
Often—Always	0.3366	0.534	0.6299	.530
About half the time—Always	0.8000	0.559	1.4301	.156
Sometimes—Always	0.7792	0.523	1.4902	.140
Never—Always	0.9457	0.767	1.2334	.221
Confidence using technology
Fairly confident—Very confident	–0.1338	0.208	0.6424	.522
Somewhat confident—Very confident	–0.5778	0.278	2.0784	.041
Slightly confident—Very confident	–0.3572	0.409	0.8731	.385
Not confident at all—Very confident	–0.8087	0.520	1.5549	.124
Online before COVID-19
Yes, I mainly taught online—Yes, I taught exclusively online	0.8571	0.959	0.8938	.374
Yes, I occasionally offered online lessons—Yes, I taught exclusively online	0.3436	0.503	0.6832	.496
No, I never taught online before 2020—Yes, I taught exclusively online	–0.0279	0.473	–0.0590	.953

Represents reference level.

In the parents’ survey analysis (Table 4), additional factors in the category “Never–Often” under Connectivity Issues also significantly contributed to satisfaction (b = 0.8596, β = 0.364, t = 2.359, p = .025), suggesting that parents whose children never experienced connectivity problems were significantly more satisfied than those who often faced such issues. In contrast, factors related to pre-COVID online teaching experiences and the frequency of video recordings did not show significant contributions to satisfaction, as their p-values were above conventional significance levels.

Table 4.

Additional Multiple Regression Analysis, Parents’ Survey: Model Coefficients—Parent’s satisfaction.

Predictor	Estimate	SE	t	p
Intercept^a	0.3132	0.823	0.381	0.706
Student Independence	0.3835	0.154	2.498	.018
Parental Involvement	–0.0171	0.134	–0.128	.899
Connectivity Issues
About half the time—Often	0.1003	0.510	0.197	.845
Sometimes—Often	0.4018	0.285	1.410	.169
Never—Often	0.8596	0.364	2.359	.025
Before Covid-19
Yes, we had a few lessons online—Yes, all lessons were online	0.2220	0.592	0.375	.710
No, we have never had online lessons before—Yes, all lessons were online	0.2933	0.504	0.582	.565
My child started learning piano during or after the Covid-19 pandemic—Yes, all lessons were online	1.0313	0.620	1.665	.106
Video recordings
Often—Always	1.1275	0.783	1.439	.160
About half the time—Always	0.2343	0.634	0.369	.714
Sometimes—Always	0.1649	0.508	0.325	.748
Never—Always	0.1347	0.470	0.287	.776
Student Motivation	0.3416	0.208	1.645	.111

Represents reference level.

Discussion and conclusion

This study explored the extent to which student independence, skill acquisition, parental support, and student motivation served as significant predictors of satisfaction with online piano lessons, as perceived by piano teachers and parents of piano students. In addition, it examined other factors—such as the technology used, broadband connectivity, prior experiences of having online lessons, and teachers’ confidence using technology—impacting the online lesson experiences of young piano students. The survey sampled an international cohort. Data showed a growing trend in online and hybrid piano lessons after the pandemic, as reported by teachers and parents, consistent with earlier research (Aaberg, 2023). Teachers also reported that most young piano students struggled with online piano lessons, a concern that has been previously documented (Duffy & Healey, 2017; Dumlavwalla, 2017; Koutsoupidou, 2014; Salvador et al., 2021).

The analysis highlighted the importance of seamless connectivity and technological confidence. Parents reported that connectivity issues affected their satisfaction with online lessons, confirming the findings of other studies (e.g., Joseph & Lennox, 2021; Koutsoupidou, 2014; Kruse et al., 2013; Rucsanda et al., 2021; Salvador et al., 2021; Schiavio et al., 2021). Moreover, teachers who were more confident in using technology reported higher satisfaction levels, consistent with other current research (Merrick & Joseph, 2023).

The data also showed that teachers predominantly used laptops, tablets, and mobile phones for online lessons, whereas students (as reported by parents) commonly used tablets and laptops. The most used videoconferencing software by both groups was Zoom, in line with existing literature (Aaberg, 2023; Martínez-Hernández, 2022). However, this study also reported the use of videoconferencing platforms that have not been previously documented in the literature, including PracticePal, Rock Out Loud Live, Sonatico, 1on1, Muzie.ie, WeChat, Koord, and Meteor. However, direct surveys or studies specifically questioning parents of music students about the videoconferencing platforms or devices used for their children’s online music lessons seem scarce. Previous research has shown that technology is used less frequently in face-to-face teaching studios compared with practice spaces (Waddell & Williamon, 2019); however, post-pandemic online lessons are clearly challenging this paradigm. The same research also found relatively limited use of audio and video recordings in music teaching, a pattern that was also evident in the current study.

Regression analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between student independence—such as annotating scores unprompted, asking questions, and responding actively to feedback—and teacher and parent satisfaction with online piano lessons. It is possible that independence may be a prerequisite for successful online learning, or alternatively, that it can be developed through the process of taking online lessons. Lower levels of independence at the outset were associated with greater dissatisfaction among teachers and parents.

Furthermore, teachers emphasised the importance of skill acquisition, such as reading notation, maintaining a steady pulse, and recognising dynamic and articulation markings. The data indicate that teachers were more satisfied with online piano lessons when students could work autonomously and demonstrate musical understanding. Given that the vast literature on autonomy and independence is based on face-to-face lesson settings (e.g., Kupers et al., 2014; Roesler, 2017), it is useful to note that these factors remain important, if not more so, in online settings.

The parents’ survey included student motivation as a predictor, but although it showed a positive trend towards higher satisfaction with a meaningful effect size, this was not statistically significant. It is possible that student motivation may indeed be important within this sample, but not as critical as student independence. Wieser and Müller’s (2022) research concluded that intrinsic motivation among music students was generally lower during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, perhaps affecting potential relationships between motivation and the online lessons in which many had no choice but to participate if they (or their parents) wished their musical study to continue.

The most mixed views reported in the surveys concerned parental involvement during online piano lessons. While teachers considered parental involvement a crucial factor, the regression analysis from the parents’ survey indicated that parents’ reports of their involvement may not have been associated with their own satisfaction with online lessons. This highlights different perceptions regarding the role of parental support in online piano education. Although the literature emphasises the importance of a harmonious parent–student–teacher communication triangle for successful music attainment (Creech & Hallam, 2011; Upitis et al., 2017), these findings suggest that the impact of parental involvement may differ in online settings. This calls for a deeper examination of how parental roles should be adapted to optimise the online music learning experience.

Some limitations were inherent to this research. For example, most parents who completed the survey had only experienced online lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic. This context may have shaped their views, associating online lessons with stress and disruption. Nevertheless, in summary the study demonstrated that student independence was the most significant predictor of satisfaction with online piano lessons for both teachers and parents. Skill acquisition also played a crucial role in teacher satisfaction. While teachers valued parental support, it might not have significantly impacted parents’ views on their involvement in online piano lessons. Whether due to choice, enthusiasm, or necessity, technology is playing an ever-greater role in the learning of teaching of music performance (Ramirez-Melendez & Waddell, 2022). The explosion of online learning has only accelerated this trend and will very likely continue to do so; thus, we must continue to study closely the potential detriments and opportunities it brings.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr Dave Camlin.

Author Contributions

Dainora Ivanova: Formal analysis; Methodology; Project administration; Software; Visualization; Writing - original draft.

George Waddell: Data curation; Formal analysis; Software; Supervision; Writing - review & editing.

Tania Lisboa: Conceptualization; Methodology; Supervision; Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this project was given by Royal College of Music Ethics Committee.

Consent to participate

The author confirms that informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation by them ticking six statements from the consent form at the start of the survey, and participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time without explanation.

ORCID iDs

Dainora Ivanova

George Waddell

Tania Lisboa

Author biographies

Dainora Ivanova is an associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (AFHEA) and a PhD candidate at the Royal College of Music’s Centre for Performance Science, where her research focuses on synchronous online piano lessons for young beginner students. She also holds an MA in Music Education from Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance. Alongside her research, Dainora teaches 40–60 piano and Music Theory students each year across a range of ages and levels.

George Waddell is Performance Research & Innovation Fellow and Area Leader in Performance Science at the Royal College of Music, and an Honorary Research Associate at Imperial College London. His research explores how performers learn, prepare, and communicate, with a particular focus on performance evaluation and technology-enhanced learning. He is co-author of Performing Music Research: Methods in Music Education, Psychology, and Performance Science (Oxford University Press).

Tania Lisboa is Reader in Performance Science and Digital Learning at the Royal College of Music and an Honorary Research Fellow at Imperial College London. Her research focuses on expert memory, performance education, and communication in rehearsal, supported by funding from bodies such as the British Academy, AHRC, and British Council. She also serves as a commissioner for the International Society for Music Education’s Commission for the Education of the Professional Musician.

References

Aaberg

(2023). Virtual Teaching in the Applied String Studio During the COVID-19 Pandemic. String Research Journal, 13(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/19484992221121759

Antonini Philippe

Schiavio

Biasutti

. (2020). Adaptation and destabilization of interpersonal relationships in sport and music students during the COVID-19 lockdown. Heliyon, 6(10), Article e05212.

Apostolis

Ververis

(2020). Online music education in the era of COVID-19: Teaching instruments in public music secondary schools of Greece during the 2020 lockdown [Conference session]. Proceedings of ICSES 2020—International Conference on Studies in Education and Social Sciences.

Biasutti

Antonini Philippe

Schiavio

(2021). Assessing teachers’ perspectives on giving music lessons remotely during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Musicae Scientiae, 26(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864921996033

Biasutti

Antonini Philippe

Schiavio

(2021). Assessing teachers’ perspectives on giving music lessons remotely during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Musicae Scientiae, 26(3), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864921996033

Calderón-Garrido

Gustems-Carnicer

(2021). Adaptations of music education in primary and secondary school due to COVID-19: The experience in Spain. Music Education Research, 23(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1902488

Cheng

Lam

C. Y.

(2021). The worst is yet to come: The psychological impact of COVID-19 on Hong Kong music teachers. Music Education Research, 23(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1906215

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2017). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Comeau

Huta

Swirp

(2019). The Motivation for Learning Music (MLM) Questionnaire: Assessing children’s and adolescents’ autonomous motivation for learning a musical instrument. Motivation and Emotion, 43(5), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09769-7

10.

Creech

Hallam

(2011). Learning a musical instrument: The influence of interpersonal interaction on outcomes for school-aged pupils. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 102–122.

11.

Dammers

R. J.

(2009). Utilizing Internet-based videoconferencing for instrumental music lessons. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123309344159

12.

Daugvilaite

(2021). Exploring perceptions and experiences of students, parents and teachers on their online instrumental lessons. Music Education Research, 23(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1898576

13.

Davidson

J. W.

Correia

J. S.

(2002). Developing competency and artistry in musical performance: Perceptions of learning and teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 157–172.

14.

Duffy

Healey

(2017). A new medium for remote music tuition. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 10(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.10.1.5_1

15.

Dumlavwalla

(2017). Transitioning from traditional to online piano lessons: Perceptions of students, parents and teacher. MTNA E-Journal, 8(3), 2–20.

16.

Dye

(2016). Student and instructor behaviors in online music lessons: An exploratory study. International Journal of Music Education, 34(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415584290

17.

Hallam

(1998). Instrumental teaching: A practical guide to better teaching and learning. British Journal of Music Education, 16(2), 218–219.

18.

Hallam

(2006). Music psychology in education. Institute of Education, University of London.

19.

Johnson

(2017). Teaching music online: Changing pedagogical approach when moving to the online environment. London Review of Education, 15(3), 439–466.

20.

Johnson

(2022). A framework for teaching music online (1st ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

21.

Joseph

Lennox

(2021). Twists, turns and thrills during COVID-19: Music teaching and practice in Australia. Music Education Research, 23(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1906852

22.

King

Prior

Waddington-Jones

(2019a). Connect resound: Using online technology to deliver music education to remote communities. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 12(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00006_1

23.

King

Prior

Waddington-Jones

(2019b). Exploring teachers’ and pupils’ behaviour in online and face-to-face instrumental lessons. Music Education Research, 21(2), 197–209.

24.

Koutsoupidou

(2014). Online distance learning and music training: Benefits, drawbacks and challenges. Open Learning, 29(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2015.1011112

25.

Kruse

N. B.

Harlos

S. C.

Callahan

R. M.

Herring

M. L.

(2013). Skype music lessons in the academy: Intersections of music education, applied music and technology. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 6(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.6.1.43_1

26.

Kupers

Dijk

van McPherson

G. E.

van Geert

(2014). A dynamic model that links skill acquisition with self-determination in instrumental music lessons. Musicae Scientiae, 18(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864913499181

27.

Lee

K.-Y.

(2021). The pedagogical strategies for online music learning of instrumental lessons in higher education [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2021). https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210519.265

28.

Maki

(2001). Is it possible to teach music in a classroom from a distance of 1000 km? Learning environment of music education using ISDN-videoconferencing [Reports—Research]. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED466191

29.

Martínez-Hernández

(2022). Conservatory and music schoolteachers’ experiences with videoconferencing software during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Distance Education, 43(3), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2088475

30.

Matsuo

Sakaguchi

(2024). Effects of rhythm and accent patterns on tempo-keeping property of finger tapping. Music & Science, 7, 20592043241276959. https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043241276959

31.

McPherson

G. E.

Gabrielsson

(2002). From sound to sign. In Parncutt

McPherson

G. E.

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 99–115). Oxford University Press.

32.

McPherson

G. E.

Osborne

M. S.

Evans

Miksza

(2019). Applying self-regulated learning microanalysis to study musicians’ practice. Psychology of Music, 47(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617731614

33.

McPherson

G. E.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2011). Self-regulation of musical learning: A social cognitive perspective on developing performance skills. In Colwell

Webster

(Eds.), MENC handbook of research on music learning: Volume 2: Applications (pp. 130–175). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199754397.003.0004

34.

Merrick

Joseph

(2023). ICT and music technology during COVID-19: Australian music educator perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 45(1), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X221092927

35.

Okay

(2021). Turkish instrument educators’ distance education experiences related to instrument training during the COVID-19 pandemic. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 13, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i2.5690

36.

Onderdijk

K. E.

Acar

Van Dyck

(2021). Impact of lockdown measures on joint music making: Playing online and physically together. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 642713. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642713

37.

Papatzikis

(2021). An infant’s question on COVID-19 and music: Should I attend my online classes? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 771050. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771050

38.

Pike

P. D.

(2017a). Improving music teaching and learning through online service: A case study of a synchronous online teaching internship. International Journal of Music Education, 35(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415613534

39.

Pike

P. D.

(2017b). Sight-reading strategies for the beginning and intermediate piano student: A fresh look at a familiar topic. American Music Teacher, 62(4), 16–19.

40.

Pike

P. D.

Shoemaker

(2015). Online piano lessons: A teacher’s journey into an emerging 21st-century virtual teaching environment. American Music Teacher, 65(1), 12–16.

41.

Pike

P. D.

Shoemaker

(2013). The effect of distance learning on acquisition of piano sight-reading skills. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 6(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.6.2.147_1

42.

Pozo

J. I.

Pérez Echeverría

M.-P.

Casas-Mas

López-Íñiguez

Cabellos

Méndez

Torrado

J. A.

Baño

(2022). Teaching and learning musical instruments through ICT: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Heliyon, 8(1), Article e08761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08761

43.

Ramirez-Melendez

Waddell

(2022). Technology enhanced learning of performance ( McPherson

G. E.

, Ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-music-performance-volume-2-9780190058869?cc=gb&lang=en&#

44.

Riley

PatriciaE

. (2009). Video-conferenced music teaching: Challenges and progress. Music Education Research, 11(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903151580

45.

Roesler

R. A.

(2017). Independence pending: Teacher behaviors preceding learner problem solving. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416672858

46.

Rucsanda

M. D.

Belibou

Cazan

A.-M.

(2021). Students’ attitudes toward online music education during the COVID 19 lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 753785. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753785

47.

Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.). (2023). The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.001.0001

48.

Salvador

Knapp

E. J.

Mayo

(2021). Reflecting on the “Community” in Community Music School after a transition to all-online instruction. Music Education Research, 23(2), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1905623

49.

Schiavio

Biasutti

Antonini Philippe

(2021). Creative pedagogies in the time of pandemic: A case study with conservatory students. Music Education Research, 23(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1881054

50.

Seddon

Biasutti

(2009). Participant approaches to and reflections on learning to play a 12-bar blues in an asynchronous e-learning environment. International Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761409336704

51.

Shoemaker

van Stam

(2010, April). e-Piano, a case of music education via elearning in rural Zambia. In Web Science Conference 2010.

52.

Spiro

Perkins

Kaye

Tymoszuk

Mason-Bertrand

Cossette

Glasser

Williamon

(2021). The effects of COVID-19 lockdown 1.0 on working patterns, income, and wellbeing among performing arts professionals in the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 594086.

53.

Upitis

Abrami

P. C.

Brook

King

(2017). Parental involvement in children’s independent music lessons. Music Education Research, 19(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1202220

54.

Vaizman

(2022). Teaching musical instruments during COVID-19: Teachers assess struggles, relations with students, and leveraging. Music Education Research, 24(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2053512

55.

Vigl

Koehler

Henning

(2024). Exploring the accuracy of musical tempo memory: The effects of reproduction method, reference tempo, and musical expertise. Memory & Cognition, 52(6), 1299–1312. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01543-6

56.

Waddell

Williamon

(2019). Technology use and attitudes in music learning. Frontiers in ICT, 6, Article 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fict.2019.00011

57.

Welch

G. F.

Purves

Hargreaves

D. J.

Marshall

N. A.

(2011). Early career challenges in secondary school music teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903540603

58.

Williamon

Ginsborg

Perkins

Waddell

(2021). Performing music research: Methods in music education, psychology, and performance science. Oxford University Press.

59.

Wieser

Müller

F. H.

(2022). Motivation in Instrumental Music Instruction Before and During the Remote Learning Phase Due to COVID-19 Crisis. Music & Science, 5, 20592043221132938. https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043221132938