An Exploratory Study of Music Teachers’ Flow Experiences Between Performing and Teaching Music

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine music teachers’ experiences with flow while performing and teaching music. A model with four flow antecedents (Challenge, Skills, Goal Clarity, and Feedback) and three dimensions of flow state (Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation) was adopted to investigate music teachers’ flow experiences in performing and teaching. Two hundred twenty-five music teachers completed the Flow in Music Performing and Teaching Scale, modified from Buil et al. The analyses revealed that the four flow antecedents in the proposed model explained a substantial amount of variance in music teachers’ flow state for both performing and teaching music settings (54.0% in performing, 34.7% in teaching). Participants’ open-ended descriptions of flow were also collected to further explore music teachers’ personal experiences with flow. The open-ended descriptions revealed that music teachers cited topics pertaining to Challenge, Skills, Absorption, Enjoyment, and Flow Disruptor when describing flow in performance. In contrast, they tended to cite topics pertaining to Feedback, Goal Clarity, and Group Flow when describing flow in teaching. Because Feedback and Goal Clarity appeared to be more closely associated with flow in teaching, executing lesson plans to accomplish goals while flexibly responding to students’ spontaneous feedback may elicit flow for teaching.

Keywords

group flow absorption enjoyment intrinsic motivation flow antecedents

People experience a plethora of emotions from the varied positive and negative encounters in their lives, and through it all, they seek for happiness, a feeling of fulfillment, or a deep sense of enjoyment. Heightened emotional moments can occur when individuals concentrate on a task and feel in control of their actions and, as such, experience in an equilibrium between the challenge of the task and the skills they possess. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) defined such moments as flow, suggesting they involve a “holistic sensation people feel when they act with total involvement” (p. 36). Flow can occur when people engage in a variety of tasks, such as writing a poem, conducting an experiment, rock climbing, cycling, dancing, or doing surgery (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow experiences can help individuals find meaning and satisfaction in their lives.

Music-making is an activity that requires concentrated effort, and thus people often experience flow when performing music. Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1990) also introduced musical examples of experiencing flow, including playing an instrument or composing music. Since then, many scholars have researched flow in musical contexts and found that flow is experienced among music performers across various ages and skill levels, including young children (Custodero, 2005), secondary-level music students (Diaz & Silveira, 2013; O’Neill, 1999), and professional and amateur musicians in postsecondary school settings (Fritz & Avsec, 2007; Miksza & Tan, 2015; Sinnamon et al., 2012). These studies, though, might have overlooked another group of musicians— music teachers—who may also benefit from flow experiences in their daily lives.

Music teaching in K–12 schools has long been recognized as a more stressful job compared to those in other subject areas (Shaw, 2016). Music teachers are in a unique position of experiencing overload, role conflict, or resource inadequacy (Scheib, 2003). Music class sizes are often bigger than other classrooms, and teachers work with hundreds of students per day; however, they are mostly isolated from other teachers in their buildings (Sindberg, 2011). It seems that both administrative and psychological approaches are necessary to support music teachers. Systemic reforms should be made in consideration of music teachers’ workload (Scheib, 2003). Also, psychological approaches could help teachers manage their stress so that they could perform their jobs effectively (Kang & Yoo, 2019).

Nevertheless, previous studies have predominantly focused on optimal experiences in performing music, and relatively little has been researched about teaching music. In the performing setting, flow is known to be positively related to music performers’ subjective well-being (Fritz & Avsec, 2007). The balance between skill and challenge, daily practice, and mastery-approach goals are significant predictors of flow (O’Neill, 1999; Tan & Miksza, 2018). Participation in music ensembles may elicit more flow moments for music performers than social activities, and a large ensemble setting was the platform that most frequently induced flow (Diaz & Silveira, 2013). In addition, grit, self-efficacy, and commitment to a musical activity are positively correlated with flow, but flow and performance anxiety are negatively associated (Cohen & Bonder, 2018; Fullagar et al., 2013; Miksza & Tan, 2015). While gender, age, instrument, or prior experience have not been found to affect flow in most studies (Iusca, 2015; Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013), a few scholars found that gender and instrument were weakly related to musicians’ flow (Biasutti & Frezza, 2009; Valenzuela et al, 2018).

Given that music teachers are also music performers, we are curious as to whether music teachers’ flow experience would be similar or different in the contexts of performing and teaching. Because teaching (preparing materials, presenting concepts, facilitating students’ learning by interacting with them, and assessing learning outcomes) is a distinct act from music performing, preservice music teachers often need to establish new identities as teachers in addition to their previously formed identities as musicians (Conway et al., 2010; Wagoner, 2015). Learning more about the flow experiences of music teachers in the act of teaching could inform approaches for supporting them in their work.

Very few scholars researched music teachers’ experiences with flow while teaching. Bakker (2005) surveyed 178 music teachers and 605 music students and concluded that teachers’ flow experience was positively related to their students’ flow experience. However, Bakker employed a domain-general measure for flow with relatively ambiguous items. For example, instead of distinguishing between teaching and performing music, the items included expressions such as “your work” (i.e., “Can you decide yourself how you execute your work?”; p. 32). It is unclear whether “your work” indicated music teaching/learning or performing, and consequently, it is difficult to interpret the results of that study. Several scholars have researched the nature of teachers’ flow in general education contexts. Beard and Hoy (2010) surveyed 260 elementary teachers’ flow and suggested that the Jackson-Marsh model (Jackson & Marsh, 1996; understanding flow using Csikszentmihalyi’s nine elements) would be a better explanation of flow than the Quinn (2005) model (understanding flow as a first-order factor with its antecedents and consequences). After surveying 566 teachers’ and principals’ flow, Marshall (2013) found that teachers’ flow was related neither to mindfulness nor to school structure and thus was individualistic in nature. More studies in music teaching contexts are necessary to deepen the understanding of flow in music education.

It is also important to select a reliable measurement instrument due to the multifaceted nature of flow. In music education, the Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (36 items; Jackson & Eklund, 2002), the Short Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS-2; nine items; Jackson et al., 2008), and the Flow State Scale (FSS; 36 items; Jackson & Marsh, 1996) have each been used. These scales measure domain-general flow with items paired with 5- or 7-point Likert-type scales. The measures address nine dimensions of flow: Challenge-Skill Balance, Merging of Action and Awareness, Clear Goals, Clear Feedback, Concentration, Sense of Control, Loss of Self-Consciousness, Time Transformation, and Autotelic Experience:

Challenge–Skill Balance: The equilibrium between an achievable challenge and one’s skill level is crucial to experiencing flow.

Merging of Action and Awareness: One’s action and awareness are merged in the flow state, so the activity becomes automatic, spontaneous, and effortless.

Goal Clarity: The activity and its goal should be clearly identified.

Clear Feedback: Clear and immediate feedback based on the goal is necessary.

Concentration: One’s concentration on the task is essential in an optimal, enjoyable state.

Sense of Control: While engaging in a task, one does not have to actively try to achieve the goal because their actions are under control.

Loss of Self-Consciousness: A capacity to avoid concerns regarding one’s skill leads to egoless action.

Time Transformation: Individuals experience a reduced or increased sense of time.

Autotelic Experience: An optimal experience from a task is intrinsically rewarded.

Although the aforementioned measures delineate various components of flow with high reliability and validity, there are also critiques. The main critique was that the nine dimensions, identified as flow state in the measures, are inherently different concept types (Quinn, 2005). For example, the balance between skill and challenge and goal clarity are structural features of a task (Buil et al., 2018; Fullagar et al., 2013; Peifer et al., 2020; Tan & Miksza, 2018). However, feedback is the set of cues that one extracts from a task (Quinn, 2005). Based on their critiques, Buil et al. (2018) isolated three out of nine flow state dimensions in DFS-2 and FSS (Challenge-Skill Balance, Clear Goals, and Clear Feedback) and reframed them as four flow antecedents (Challenge, Skills, Feedback, and Goal Clarity), which indicated the preconditions to elicit flow.

Regarding flow state, Buil et al. (2018) and Bakker (2005, 2008) proposed three components, Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation, as the main dimensions of flow state. Absorption, comprising aspects from Merging of Action and Awareness, Concentration, and Time Transformation, indicates a state of total concentration (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). Often people lose the sense of time passing, being fully immersed in a targeted activity. Enjoyment, reflecting characteristics from Sense of Control and Loss of Self-Consciousness, refers to one’s assessment of the quality of a targeted activity (Buil et al., 2018). People perceive a high degree of pleasure and satisfaction in flow. Intrinsic Motivation, encapsulating components from Autotelic Experience, implies one’s desire to perform a targeted activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Jackson & Marsh, 1996). People often strongly desire to engage in an activity due to the intrinsic rewards produced by the task. In the current study, for the effective exploration of flow in performing and teaching, I adopted a theoretical model with four components of flow antecedents (Challenge, Skills, Feedback, and Goal Clarity) and three dimensions of flow state (Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation) based on Bakker (2005, 2008) and Buil et al. (2018; see Figure SA in the supplemental document available with the online version of this article).

The purpose of this study was to examine music teachers’ experiences with flow while performing and teaching music. I posed two research questions: (a) How did the model with antecedents and dimensions of flow state explain music teachers’ experiences of flow in performing and teaching settings? and (b) How did music teachers describe their perceived flow in performing and teaching music?

Method

Participants

I first contacted 10,000 National Association for Music Education (NAfME) members who identified themselves as inservice music teachers in spring 2019 using a listserv research service provided by the Society for Research in Music Education. However, after two rounds of survey distribution, 163 teachers started the survey (0.016%), and only 84 teachers completed it (0.008%). Therefore, I also sent out the survey to approximately 4,000 members of the Florida Music Education Association (FMEA) who identified themselves as inservice teachers to obtain an adequate number of participants required for the statistical analyses. The return rate for the FMEA members was higher; 207 teachers started the survey (0.05%), and 141 teachers completed it (0.035%). In total, out of 330 music teachers who started the survey, 225 (68.1%) completed it (84 participants through the NAfME and 141 through the FMEA). Two of the 84 participants who responded through the NAfME marked themselves as Florida teachers, and nine out of 141 participants who responded through the FMEA marked themselves as teachers in other states. Thus, among the 225 participants, 134 (59.6%) participants were from Florida, and 91 (40.4%) were teachers from 33 other states. Independent sample t tests showed no significant difference between the 134 Florida teachers and the 91 teachers from 33 other states on flow ratings for performing, t(223) = −1.064, p = .289, p > .05, or teaching, t(223) = −1.086, p = .279, p > .05. Because no group differences were found, the 225 participants were treated as one group, representing one convenience sample of music teachers (see online supplement A for a more detailed description of the two groups of participants).

The age of the participants ranged from 21 to 80 (M = 41.87 years, SD = 13.03); 57.8% (n = 123) identified as female, 40.4% (n = 85) as male, and 1.8% (n = 4) as other. One hundred twenty of the participants (53.3%) reported their teaching setting as suburban, followed by urban (21.3%), rural (19.1%), and other (6.2%). Ninety-two participants (40.8%) marked that their teaching context is general music, followed by choir (40.4%, n = 91), band (31.1%, n = 70), other (25.7%, n = 58), and orchestra (19.1%, n = 43). (The total percentage exceeds 100% because participants were allowed to choose multiple answers.) Slightly more than half of the participants held a master’s degree (51.1%), followed by bachelor (30.7%), doctoral (15.1%), and other (2.7%). The participants’ ethnic backgrounds included Caucasian (56.9%), Latino (18.2%), Asian (9.8%), African American, (8.9%), and multiracial (6.2%).

Measurement Instrument

The survey was distributed via Qualtrics (an online survey platform), and included three parts: an informed consent portion, the main survey, and demographic information. The main survey was titled “Flow in Music Performing and Teaching Scale (FMPTS),” modified from Buil et al. (2018), who identified four dimensions of flow antecedents (Challenge, Skills, Feedback, and Goal Clarity) and three dimensions of flow state (Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation) based on Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and Bakker (2005, 2008). Buil et al. reported good reliability and validity of their measure when used with 167 undergraduate students in a classroom-based business simulation game setting. The composite reliabilities were greater than 0.7, and all standardized factor loadings were greater than 0.6.

I modified Buil et al.’s (2018) items in several ways. First, I altered the wording of the original items to fit to two different settings, yielding one set for performing and another for teaching music. For example, under the Challenge dimension, the original item was “Playing the business simulation game challenges me.” For performing, this item was modified to “Playing my primary instrument (or voice) challenges me,” and for teaching, it was revised to “Teaching music in my classroom challenges me.” Although teaching and performing music are distinct acts containing their own course of actions (Conway et al., 2010), they may overlap to a certain degree, especially for performance-based secondary ensemble teachers (i.e., students’ performance). To exclude gray areas and compare the two distinct acts of music performing and teaching, the phrase “primary instrument (or voice)” was inserted into the performing music items, which enabled music teachers to reflect on their individual endeavors of performing outside of school. After altering the phrases of all items, the initial version of the FMPTS (52 items: 26 items for performing and 26 items for teaching music) was sent to three music education researchers for a content validity check. The three researchers held or were completing doctoral degrees in music education and were currently teaching music in K–12 settings. Based on their suggestions, I made a few minor alterations to the wording of the original items for clarification.

Then, a pilot study (n = 33) was conducted with the modified version of the FMPTS to check for face validity and internal consistency. For performing, all the seven dimensions of flow antecedents and state showed sufficient reliability (αs = .74–.94). For teaching, six out of the seven dimensions of flow yielded sufficient reliability (αs = .79–.94). However, the feedback dimension of teaching showed poor reliability (α < .6). The concept of immediate feedback on teaching seemed to be unclear depending on the context. After conducting informal interviews with a few pilot study participants, I found that some participants inferred that feedback was given only by students, but others extended its context as given by colleagues, parents, or administrators. Those providing feedback could also vary if the survey respondent’s school district enacts periodical peer observation or other feedback opportunities. To further clarify the feedback category for teaching, I inserted the phrase “students, colleagues, parents, or administrators” in the teaching items to include all possible types of feedback that teachers can receive while teaching. I also inserted “audiences, friends, or professional musicians” in the Feedback performing items to unify the structure of the two sentences. The final version of the FMPTS is found in online supplement B. The participants expressed their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In both the pilot and main surveys, I introduced an operational definition of flow at the beginning of the survey to clarify the term and to ensure the comparability of participants’ responses.

Open-Ended Descriptions

Participants also responded to four open-ended questions to describe their perceived flow antecedents and state in performing and teaching music at the end of the FMPTS: (a) How would you describe your flow experiences in teaching music in your classroom? (b) What do you think triggers your flow experience in teaching music? (c) How would you describe your flow experiences in playing your primary instrument (or voice)? and (d) What do you think triggers your flow experience in playing your primary instrument (or voice)? The open-ended responses for music teachers’ flow descriptions were initially analyzed by the researcher using an inductive approach to identify emergent ideas (Creswell & Poth, 2016). If a response had more than one meaning, multiple codes were assigned. Initially, each idea of each response was assigned a code(s), and consequently, 27 codes were created with 1,431 code assignments. Thirty-three out of 1,431 code assignments were recognized as miscellaneous minor opinions; thus, they did not constitute a code and were removed from the analysis. Some examples of these were “I have no idea, never thought about it before (performing)” and “Health – allergies, colds, sickness (teaching).” This process resulted in a total number of 1,398 code assignment under 27 codes in the analysis (693 for performing, 705 for teaching).

Afterward, the 27 codes were restructured based on the theoretical model of flow antecedents and state (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Buil et al., 2018). Out of these 27 codes, 18 codes were collapsed into seven categories that correspond to the four flow antecedents and the three dimensions of flow state: Challenge, Skills, Goal Clarity, Feedback, Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation. The nine remaining codes were further analyzed to explore additional explanations of music teachers’ flow beyond those specified in the theoretical model. These were collapsed into three categories: Group Flow, Existential Meaning, and Flow Disruptor. Group Flow indicated collaborations and synergy with students, other musicians, and audiences as the source of flow (Sawyer, 2006; Tan & Sin, 2021). Existential Meaning referred to personal meanings, associations, or memories with a certain genre, style, or act as triggers of flow (Baker et al., 2015). Flow Disruptor represented factors that inhibited music teachers from finding flow either in performing or teaching music. An independent researcher who studied social psychology in her doctoral degree checked 25% of the code assignments (n = 350) for accuracy and conceptual fit, and the interrater reliability was sufficient (r = .94). The code map with the 27 codes is provided in Figure SB included in the online supplement. Examples of open-ended responses for each of the 10 categories are presented in the following:

Challenge

1.1 Performing: “Working on a skill or piece that is interesting to me and challenging” (also assigned to Skills).

1.2 Teaching: “The challenge of the piece creates motivation” (also assigned to Motivation).

Skills

2.1 Performing: “Skill [refined from] many years of practice.”

2.2 Teaching: “The ability to teach and reach goals with students” (also assigned to Goal Clarity).

Feedback

3.1 Performing: “As a performer, my flow comes from a personal level of accomplishment as well as audience feedback” (also assigned to Goal Clarity).

3.2 Teaching: “Enjoying the moment your students’ eyes light up when they do something and they realize it sounds good.”

Goal Clarity

4.1 Performing: “The way I experience my piano playing usually depends on the goal of my playing.”

4.2 Teaching: “Having a specific goal in that lesson, and a long-term plan for at least a few weeks.”

Absorption

5.1 Performing: “It’s focused on the playing of the instrument and the elimination of distractions.”

5.2 Teaching: “I can sense it. . . . It is a surprise when the bell rings to change classes. Lost sense of time.”

Enjoyment

6.1 Performing: “The adrenaline of being in a performance or the happiness at playing in a good hall.”

6.2 Teaching: “being well-rested, being prepared for anything that could come up, . . . enjoying what I’m teaching, the absence of external pressure to teach a certain way or impress anyone.”

Intrinsic Motivation

7.1 Performing: “What triggers my flow is my wanting to sing and the happiness and joy it brings me” (also assigned to Enjoyment).

7.2 Teaching: “Intrinsic motivation to provide meaning to students”

Group Flow.

8.1 Performing: “Connection with the music and the other musicians performing with me.”

8.2 Teaching: “Students having a unified commitment to focus, playing their instruments well, and working together toward the same goal” (also assigned to Absorption and Goal Clarity).

Existential Meaning

9.1 Performing: “Memories of special moments with certain pieces also tend to heighten the likelihood of making that special connection.”

9.2 Teaching: “This is God’s true gift to me – a love of teaching” (also assigned to Motivation).

Flow Disruptor

10.1 Performing: “I do not play as much as I would like to, so I am totally immersed into teaching.”

10.2 Teaching: “Little relation. Too old to do something else with my life without risking my financial well-being and retirement.”

Results

Means and standard deviations of each variable of the FMPTS are provided in Table 1. As a preliminary analysis, the interitem reliability of each variable with 225 research participants was computed. All seven variables in both settings showed good reliability (αs = .70–.94), except for Feedback in teaching (α = .67; Said, 2018; Taber, 2018).

Table 1.

Mean and Standard Deviations of the Variables of the Flow in Music Teaching and Performing Scale (N = 225).

Variables	Performing		Teaching
Variables	M	SD	M	SD
Challenge	4.04	0.94	4.18	0.86
Skills	4.20	0.69	4.30	0.66
Feedback	3.95	0.86	4.43	0.68
Goal Clarity	4.43	0.70	4.45	0.70
Absorption	3.64	0.95	3.86	0.94
Enjoyment	4.47	0.75	4.43	0.82
Intrinsic Motivation	4.39	0.73	4.02	0.98
Composite Flow State Score	4.17	0.69	4.10	0.77

To answer the first research question to investigate how the model with antecedents and dimensions of flow explained music teachers’ flow for the performing and teaching settings, two statistical analyses were administered. First, I conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis using the four flow antecedents as predictor variables and a composite flow state score as the criterion variable in performing and teaching music. The variance inflation factor ratings indicated no multicollinearity among the predictor variables. Consistent with the theory, the models including all four flow antecedent variables for teaching and performing were the best prediction model for both cases; performing: F(4, 220) = 57.179, p < .001, R² = .54; Teaching: F(4, 220) = 45.918, p < .001, R² = .347. However, the order of significant predictors varied by setting. When performing, Skills, followed by Feedback, Challenge, and Goal Clarity were significant antecedents to flow (p < .05 throughout). When teaching, Feedback, followed by Skills, Challenge, and Goal Clarity, were significant antecedents (p < .05 throughout; Table 2). The R² values of the two models indicate that the four antecedents explained 54.0% of the variance in flow in performing and 34.7% in teaching.

Table 2.

Results of Stepwise Regression Analysis for Flow (N = 225).

Setting	Variable	Beta	r	R	R ²	R² Change	p
Performing
	Skills	.264	.615	.615	.378	.378	< .001
	Feedback	.214	.574	.692	.478	.100	< .001
	Challenge	.134	.443	.720	.519	.041	< .001
	Goal Clarity	.216	.594	.735	.540	.021	.002
Teaching
	Feedback	.264	.503	.503	.253	.253	< .001
	Skills	.214	.487	.558	.312	.059	< .001
	Challenge	.134	.303	.575	.330	.019	.013
	Goal Clarity	.216	.499	.589	.347	.017	.018

To understand a difference in the perceived dimensions of flow state (Absorption, Motivation, and Enjoyment) in teaching versus performing music within the proposed model, a two-way repeated analysis of variance with two within-subjects factors (mode: performing vs. teaching; flow state: Absorption, Motivation, and Enjoyment) was computed. A Bonferroni correction was applied to adjust Type I error (i.e., alpha criterion of .0167 instead of .05). A significant two-way interaction was found for Mode × Flow State, F(2, 420) = 45.429, p < .001, η_p² = .289. As follow-up analyses, paired sample t tests indicated that the participants’ Absorption ratings were higher in performing than teaching (p < .001), but the Motivation ratings were higher in teaching than performing (p < .001). No statistically significant difference was found in music teachers’ Enjoyment ratings by setting (see Figure SC in the online supplement).

To answer the second research question, I analyzed the code assignment frequencies in music teachers’ descriptions of perceived flow antecedents and state. The most frequent category in teachers’ open-ended responses was Enjoyment (20.5%), followed by Group Flow (19.6%) and Goal Clarity (17.1%; Table 3). The Pearson’s χ² test results showed that code assignments in these categories differed significantly by the performing and teaching music settings, χ²(9) = 251.56, p < .001. To reveal the categories that contributed to differences in code assignments, the standardized residual of each value was calculated. The code assignments in the Challenge, Skills, Feedback, Goal Clarity, Absorption, Enjoyment, Group Flow, and Flow Disruptor categories significantly differed by setting (|z| > 1.96 in all cases; Table 3).

Table 3.

The Open-Ended Response Analysis for Teachers’ Flow Descriptions: Category Frequency, Expected Value, Percentile within Category, and Standardized Residuals (N = 1,398).

Setting	CH	SK	FB	GC	AB	EN	IM	GF	EM	FD	Total
Category	CH	SK	FB	GC	AB	EN	IM	GF	EM	FD	Total
Performing
Count	39	55	15	70	114	200	60	69	41	30	693
Expected Count	26.8	33.7	41.1	118.5	90.7	142.3	51.6	135.8	33.2	19.3	693
% within Category	72.2	80.9	18.1	29.3	62.3	69.7	57.7	25.2	61.2	76.9	49.6
S. Residual	2.4*	3.9*	−4.1*	−4.5*	2.4*	4.8*	1.2	−5.7*	1.4	2.4*
Teaching
Count	15	13	68	169	69	87	44	205	26	9	705
Expected Count	27.2	34.3	41.9	120.5	92.3	144.7	52.4	138.2	33.8	19.7	705
% within Category	27.8	19.1	81.9	70.7	37.7	30.3	42.3	74.8	38.8	23.1	50.4
S. Residual	−2.3*	−3.6*	4.0*	4.4*	−2.4*	−4.8*	−1.2	5.7*	−1.3	−2.4*
Total
Count	54	68	83	239	183	287	104	274	67	39	1,398
% of Total	3.9	4.9	5.9	17.1^c	13.1	20.5^a	7.4	19.6^b	4.8	2.8	100

Note. CH = Challenge; SK = Skills; FB = Feedback; GC = Goal Clarity; AB = Absorption; EN = Enjoyment; IM = Intrinsic Motivation; GF = Group Flow; EM = Existential Meaning; FD = Flow Disruptor; S. Residual = Standardaized Residual.

Category frequency ranked first.

Category frequency ranked second.

Category frequency ranked third.

|z| > 1.96.

In the Challenge, Skills, Absorption, Enjoyment, and Flow Disruptor categories, significantly more code assignments occurred in performing than teaching. Enjoyment was most disproportionate according to setting (z_performing = 4.8, 71.7%; z_teaching = −4.8, 30.3%), followed by Skills (z_performing = 3.7, 80.9%; z_teaching = −3.6, 19.1%), Flow Disruptor (z_performing = 2.4, 76.9%; z_teaching = −2.4, 23.1%), Absorption (z_performing = 2.4, 62.3%; z_teaching = −2.4, 37.7%), and Challenge (z_performing = 2.4, 72.2%; z_teaching = −2.3, 27.2%). In the Feedback, Goal Clarity, and Group Flow categories, significantly more code assignments occurred in teaching than performing. Group Flow was most disproportionate according to setting (z_performing = −5.7, 25.2%; z_teaching = 5.7, 74.8%), followed by Goal Clarity (z_performing = −4.5, 29.3%; z_teaching = 4.4, 70.7%), and Feedback (z_performing = −4.1, 18.1%; z_teaching = 4.0, 81.9%). No significant differences were present in Intrinsic Motivation and Existential Meaning by setting. It is worth noting that participants’ descriptions of flow may have been influenced by the FMPTS survey because the open-ended questions were administered after participants responded to the FMPTS items.

Discussion

The current study has demonstrated that the four flow antecedents (Challenge, Skill, Feedback, and Goal Clarity) in the proposed model explained a substantial amount of variation in music teachers’ experiences of flow state (the composite score of Absorption, Enjoyment, and Intrinsic Motivation) in both the performing and teaching music settings. Also, among music teachers’ descriptions of flow, certain flow antecedents and dimensions of flow state were more frequently mentioned in the performing context, whereas others were more frequent in the teaching context. The participants more frequently described their flow in performing music with the ideas of Challenge, Skills, Absorption, Enjoyment, and Flow Disruptor and their flow in teaching with the ideas of Feedback, Goal Clarity, and Group Flow. These results may suggest that by understanding these subtle but essential differences in music teachers’ flow in performing and teaching, administrators, music teacher educators, and the community may more effectively support music teachers in their work.

The Balance Between Skills and Challenge

Many scholars concurred that the balance between challenge and skills is strongly associated with musicians’ flow (Buil et al., 2018; Fullagar et al., 2013) and that musicians’ practice can build up perceived competence of their skills (O’Neill, 1999; Tan & Miksza, 2018). The findings of this study indicated that Skills was the strongest predictor of flow in performing. Thus, the current results corroborated the findings of previous researchers who reported that a balance between skills and challenge may associate with flow in performing (Peifer et al., 2020; Tan & Miksza, 2018). Both Skill and Challenge explained a larger proportion of variance in performing than teaching in the statistical analysis (Table 2), and significantly more Skill- and Challenge-related codes were found in the participants’ open-ended descriptions of performing compared to teaching.

This study also suggested that the balance between Skill and Challenge may not have as strong an influence on music teachers’ flow in teaching and rather seems to be a crucial factor in performing music. Music teachers’ perceived flow in performing may encourage them to continue to develop their musical skills and perceived competence. Some open-ended descriptions suggested that flow in performing music could be achieved via a balance between Skill and Challenge. One example reads:

I most often experience flow in playing my instrument when it is part of a larger/more complex endeavor (i.e., when it is not just about me playing my instrument but also about me collaborating with other musicians, or playing and conducting a pit orchestra, or playing and running a synthesizer program). . . . I think in these situations my brain is more challenged, and I am living “at the edge” of my capabilities.

Along with Skill and Challenge, Goal Clarity and Feedback are the antecedents of flow in the proposed model (Buil et al., 2018).

Feedback and Goal Clarity

In regard to antecedents of flow, the current study showed that Feedback was the strongest predictor of flow in teaching. Furthermore, the results suggested that Feedback and Goal Clarity may more closely associate with flow in teaching than in performing. Both Feedback and Goal Clarity explained a larger proportion of variance in flow in teaching than performing, and significantly more Feedback- and Goal Clarity-related codes occurred in participants’ descriptions of flow in teaching compared to performing. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed that immediate and unambiguous feedback promotes flow because it allows one to evaluate the processes involved in accomplishing a goal. He also posited that the type of feedback can be very diverse, including any form of response or comment, which leads to a positive result of encouraging one to achieve their goal (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). The following example demonstrates students’ facial reactions as a type of feedback for flow: “It seems to be an external emotion found in the faces of the little people—mainly their eyes. I can tell when everything is clicking, and it creates such a feeling of accomplishment in myself.” As such, various forms of feedback appeared to be more crucial for flow in teaching than in performing music.

Goal Clarity was the third most frequent antecedent category, and it appeared more frequently in descriptions of flow in teaching than flow in performing. Music teachers seemed to constantly monitor the goals of lessons, probably because they write, execute, and assess lesson plans when teaching, and they tended to experience flow when their goals were being accomplished. One example reads:

When in flow while teaching I am fully focused on the lesson and meeting the needs of the students. . . . When I teach, I am very much aware of the time, in fact, as each activity has a clearly defined time limit in my lesson plan. I would describe the flow state as a feeling of exhilaration when expertly managing the time available and meeting the goals of each activity within the time limits.

As shown in the example, Goal Clarity and Feedback may influence each other to elicit flow in teaching. Music teachers constantly self-evaluate whether they are accomplishing the goals of their lesson, with noticeable cues, such as students’ responses, aha moments, and eye contact—which were described as Feedback by Csikszentmihalyi (1990).

Three Dimensions of Flow State

Because flow state is a holistic and integrated experience, it is challenging to separately identify each element. However, scholars have consistently identified nine dimensions of flow state, framing them as separate subconcepts (Jackson & Marsh, 1996). Buil et al. (2018) and Bakker (2005, 2008) adopted two distinct strategies for conceptualizing flow state: understanding it as three separate entities and seeing it as a whole. I benchmarked their approaches, using flow state as a holistic variable adopting a composite score of flow state for the regression analysis. I also investigated flow state as three separate variables to explore possible differences among them for the analysis of variance and open-ended descriptions analyses.

Music teachers in this study rated Enjoyment higher than Absorption and Intrinsic Motivation in both settings of performing and teaching. Enjoyment was also the most frequently occurring category in teachers’ open-ended flow descriptions, but it was more frequently quoted in performing than teaching. The result may demonstrate that enjoyment would be the easiest emotion to perceive and describe when music teachers experience flow, especially when performing music.

Between Absorption and Intrinsic Motivation, music teachers rated Intrinsic Motivation higher in performing than teaching and rated Absorption higher in teaching than performing. Music teachers seem to be more absorbed in teaching than performing and more intrinsically motivated in performing than teaching. However, these statistical results were not consistent with their open-ended descriptions. Absorption-related comments (concentration, losing track of time, etc.) occurred more frequently in reference to performing than teaching, and no meaningful differences in frequency were found in Intrinsic Motivation. Perhaps the discrepancy between the survey and open-ended descriptions resulted from the multidimensional and holistic nature of flow state as a human experience, suggesting differences in the experiential nature of flow state versus the way people can describe their perceptions (Quinn, 2005). To summarize the discussions regarding flow antecedents and flow state dimensions, teaching music appears to be a more complicated practice than performing music given that less of variance in flow in teaching was explained in the proposed model compared to performing (34.7% in teaching, 54.0% in performing).

Group Flow, Existential Meaning, and Flow Disruptor

The three categories that emerged from the participants’ open-ended descriptions that were not in the original theoretical framework—Group Flow, Existential Meaning, and Flow Disruptor—could also be helpful for explaining music teachers’ flow experiences (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Buil et al., 2018). Flow Disruptor indicated negative factors in eliciting flow, and it tended to indicate an absence of the aforementioned factors; thus, it did not explain a newly emerging quality of flow. Group Flow was the second most frequent category from music teachers’ responses. Given that the theoretical model explained only 34.7% of the variance of flow in teaching, perhaps Group Flow can be a crucial factor in explaining flow in teaching.

Almost all sentences assigned to Group Flow in teaching included students as the source of flow and their engagement and success toward a common goal as flow state. An example reads:

It’s quite like boogie-boarding. I can easily predict what my students will do next and ride the wave of their energies until the end of class. I am not teaching in a rigid way, but instead letting the students guide me to my next pedagogical decision, and we naturally lead to the conclusions and learning goals of class together.

The teachers’ open-ended descriptions on Group Flow resonate with many previous research findings. According to Tay et al. (2021), Group Flow is experienced when collaborative energies are synchronized within a common project and members “share in feelings of working toward a common goal.” Music teachers in the current study described Group Flow as a communal experience in which they deeply connected with students in the process, shared feelings, and collectively achieved a goal (Sawyer, 2006; Tan & Sin, 2021). Teaching music nurtures the experience of group flow due to the mutual dependence on each other that teachers and students experience in the communal nature of music-making (Bakker, 2005; Hart & Di Blasi, 2015). Group Flow in the teaching setting can be further studied either as an antecedent and as state of flow.

Lastly, Existential Meaning was also identified beyond the theoretical model. Although Existential Meaning did not occur frequently, it could also be helpful for describing the domain-specific nature of flow in musical contexts. The presence of this category suggests that revealing personal meanings may trigger one’s flow, such as religiously heightened moments in making music and preference for or personal association with certain musical pieces, genres, or styles.

Implications for Music Teacher Education

The results of the current study have alluded to possible differences in music teachers’ flow when performing versus teaching music. Because Feedback and Goal Clarity seem to be more closely associated with flow in teaching, executing lesson plans to accomplish goals while flexibly responding to students’ spontaneous feedback may elicit flow for teaching. Teacher education and professional development programs may further emphasize lesson planning in relation to flow because identifying a goal in teaching can be a crucial flow antecedent. Music teachers may also practice detecting and responding to students’ feedback in the sequence of accomplishing a goal to promote their flow in teaching.

Group Flow can be another crucial factor for experiencing flow in teaching. A mounting number of scholars have suggested that flow can be experienced in a group setting when members are pursuing the same musical goals (Gaggioli et al., 2017; Hart & Di Blasi, 2015; Sawyer, 2006; Tan et al., 2019). Introducing the concept of Group Flow to preservice and inservice music teachers may encourage them to take a more student-centered approach and to effectively share goals with students. Consequently, teachers may be more likely to experience the synergetic moments of Group Flow.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

The convenience sampling of music teachers recruited from the NAfME and FMEA members may limit the generalizability of the finding of this study. A relatively small percentage of variance in flow was explained by the variables in the theoretical model (54.0% in performing, 34.7% in teaching); thus, participants’ open-ended descriptions of flow in each setting revealed a few additional factors that explained flow. However, the open-ended questions were placed at the end of the FMPTS to inform the concept of flow to research participants, which might have influenced their descriptions of flow. The scarcity of studies on music teachers’ flow in general may suggest that much remains uncovered about music teachers’ flow. Continued scholarly efforts are required to determine what other variables may contribute to the phenomenon of flow in performing and teaching.

In flow theory, feedback indicates an immediate sense of how a goal is being accomplished in the moment. However, Buil et al.’s (2018) measure that was adapted for the current study seems to conceptualize feedback as also occurring after the moment or over time, which is not necessarily consistent with the concept of Feedback proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). It should be noted that the potential discrepancies on the concept of Feedback in the flow theory and Buil et al.’s measure may have led to lack of clarity in this category and its low reliability but yielded significance in the teaching model.

In the current study, music teachers frequently voiced sentiments related to Group Flow to describe their flow in teaching. Group Flow may be a more influential factor in explaining music teachers’ flow in teaching despite not being among the conventional concepts of flow antecedents and flow state (Bakker, 2005, 2008; Buil et al., 2018; Jackson & Marsh, 1996). The nature of Group Flow in the teaching setting, such as interactions with students, unified action toward a common goal, synergetic moments, and the relationship between students’ and teachers’ flow, can be investigated further.

We can also diversify research methods in future studies. The current study adopted self-reporting methods via rating scales and open-ended descriptions, but some scholars also recommend a context-based approach to capture the occurrence of flow in musical settings (Clementson, 2019; Custodero, 2005). Prolonged engagement with research participants and the observation of authentic flow indicators within music teaching settings could help to identify the domain-specific components of flow. To deepen understandings of the multidimensional concept of flow related to teaching and performing music, comparing and contrasting perceived flow (self-rating or descriptions) and observed indicators would also be a meaningful endeavor.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jrm-10.1177_00224294221099833 – Supplemental material for An Exploratory Study of Music Teachers’ Flow Experiences Between Performing and Teaching Music

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jrm-10.1177_00224294221099833 for An Exploratory Study of Music Teachers’ Flow Experiences Between Performing and Teaching Music by Sangmi Kang in Journal of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Sangmi Kang

Author Biography

Sangmi Kang is assistant professor of music teaching and learning at the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, New York. Her research interests include cultural diversity, intrinsic motivation, and 21st-century skills in music education.

References

Baker

F. A.

Silverman

M. J.

MacDonald

(2015). Reliability and validity of the Meaningfulness of Songwriting Scale (MSS) with adults on acute psychiatric and detoxification units. Journal of Music Therapy, 53(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thv020

Bakker

A. B.

(2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001

Bakker

A. B.

(2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation of the WOLF. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(3), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.007

Beard

K. S.

Hoy

W. K.

(2010). The nature, meaning, and measure of teacher flow in elementary schools: A test of rival hypotheses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 426-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375294

Biasutti

Frezza

(2009). Dimensions of music improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2–3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902861240

Buil

Catalán

Martínez

(2018). Exploring students’ flow experiences in business simulation games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12237

Clementson

C. J.

(2019). A mixed methods investigation of flow experience in the middle school instrumental music classroom. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X18773093

Cohen

Bodner

(2018). The relationship between flow and music performance anxiety amongst professional classical orchestral musicians. Psychology of Music, 47, 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618754689

Conway

Eros

Pellegrino

West

(2010). Instrumental music education students’ perceptions of tensions experienced during their undergraduate degree. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(3), 260–275. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40043076

10.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

11.

Csikszentmihalyi

, (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

12.

Diaz

F. M.

Silveira

(2013). Dimensions of flow in academic and social activities among summer music camp participants. International Journal of Music Education, 31(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411434455

13.

Fritz

B. S.

Avsec

(2007). The experience of flow and subjective well-being of music students. Horizons of Psychology, 16(2), 5–17.

14.

Fullagar

C. J.

Knight

P. A.

Sovern

H. S.

(2013). Challenge/skill balance, flow, and performance anxiety. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 62, 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00494.x

15.

Gaggioli

Chirico

Mazzoni

Milani

Riva

(2017). Networked flow in musical bands. Psychology of Music, 45(2), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616665003

16.

Hart

Di Blasi

(2015). Combined flow in musical jam sessions: A pilot qualitative study. Psychology of Music, 43(2), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613502374

17.

Iusca

(2015). The relationship between flow and music performance level of undergraduates in exam situations: The effect of musical instrument. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 396–400.

18.

Jackson

S. A.

Eklund

R. C.

(2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.133

19.

Jackson

S. A.

Marsh

H. W.

(1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.18.1.17

20.

Jackson

S. A.

Martin

A. J.

Eklund

R. C.

(2008). Long and short measures of flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.5.561

21.

Kang

Yoo

(2019). Music teachers’ psychological needs and work engagement as predictors of their well-being. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 221, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.221.0058

22.

Marshall

R. P.

III . (2013). Teacher flow and its relationship to school mindfulness and enabling school structure. (Publication No. 3612112) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

23.

Miksza

Tan

(2015). Predicting collegiate wind players’ practice efficiency, flow, and self-efficacy for self-regulation: An exploratory study of relationships between teachers’ instruction and students’ practicing. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415583474

24.

O’Neill

(1999). Flow theory and the development of musical performance skills. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 129–134. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40013260

25.

Peifer

Schönfeld

Wolters

Aust

Margraf

(2020). Well done! Effects of positive feedback on perceived self-efficacy, flow and performance in a mental arithmetic task. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01008

26.

Quinn

R. W.

(2005). Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design of national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 610–641. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.50.4.610

27.

Said

(2018). Statistical analysis: Internal-consistency reliability and construct validity, European Centre for Research Training and Development UK, 6(1), 27–38.

28.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061850

29.

Scheib

J. W.

(2003). Role stress in the professional life of the school music teacher: A collective case study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345846

30.

Shaw

R. D.

(2016). Music teacher stress in the era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(2), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.1005325

31.

Sindberg

(2011). Alone all together –The conundrum of music teacher isolation and connectedness. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.189.0007

32.

Sinnamon

Moran

O’Connell

(2012). Flow among musicians: Measuring peak experiences of student performers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411434931

33.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

34.

Tan

Miksza

(2018). A cross-cultural examination of university students’ motivation toward band and academics in Singapore and the United States. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65(4), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429417735095

35.

Tan

Sin

H. X.

(2021). Flow research in music contexts: A systematic literature review. Musicae Scientiae, 25(4), 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864919877564

36.

Tay

Tan

Goh

(2021). A PRISMA review of collective flow experiences in music contexts. Psychology of Music, 49(3), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619873389

37.

Valenzuela

Codina

Vicente Pestana

(2018). Self-determination theory applied to flow in conservatoire music practice: The roles of perceived autonomy and competence, and autonomous and controlled motivation. Psychology of Music, 46, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617694502

38.

Wagoner

C. L.

(2015). Measuring music teacher identity: Self-efficacy and commitment among music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 205, 27–49. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.205.0027

39.

Wrigley

W. J.

Emmerson

S. B.

(2013). The experience of the flow state in live music performance. Psychology of Music, 41(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611425903

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

3.17 MB