Motivation in Higher Instrumental Education: A Survey with Music Teacher Candidates in Turkey

Current research shows that more systematic studies are needed on how or why the motivation phenomenon occurs in musical contexts. Further research with different socio-economic and sociocultural characteristics in different countries and geographical regions may provide important information to help explain the relationship between instrument training and motivation. In this context, the study aims to examine the motivation of a group of music teacher candidates and their relationships with various variables. The study was carried out in Turkey, at a public university and in a city that differs from many others in terms of socio-economic structure and dynamics. The study group consisted of students (N=86) enrolled in the Music Teacher Training Program at the university. The data were collected with the advisor database, demographic data form, and ‘The Motivation Scale for Individual Instrument Course’ developed by Girgin (2015). To analyze the data, frequency and percentage distribution, t-test, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman’s Correlation were used. The results showed that the students’ motivation levels of the individual instrument lesson were high-level in the dimensions of amotivation and success motivation and medium-level in the dimension of study motivation. The general motivation was high-level. There were not any significant differences between the general motivation and the variables of gender, grade level, and graduated high school. On the other hand, it was determined that the motivation scores differed significantly in favor of the groups that choosing the instrument voluntarily and devoted more time to practice the instrument. It was found that there was a positive correlation between motivation and course success. The results were discussed within the framework of the corporate culture and the socio-economic and socio-cultural characteristics of the city and the students.


Introduction
Although there are different classifications (for more detail see Ballantyne & Packer, 2004;MEB, 2008;Uçan, 2006), competence fields of the music teaching profession are classified in four categories: a) content field knowledge, b) musical behavior styles, c) teaching knowledge, and d) teaching professional knowledge (Kalyoncu, 2005). Instrument training has a significant role in the acquisition of musical behavior styles that have a predominant place in this classification. The act of playing that is at the center of instrument training and base on the brain-body relationship requires interactive use of cognitive, perceptual, operational, and affective skills (Büyükaksoy, 1997;Davidson, Faulkner, & McPherson, 2009;Smith, 2005). In this sense, instrument training is a 'difficult' field where the teaching of complex behaviors related to an instrument is targeted.
Success in instrument training depends on various common factors that are valid for other fields of education. These factors are described as attitude, anxiety, self-confidence, readiness, prelearning, curriculum, learning content, educational environments, teaching materials, teacher, etc. (Feldman, 1997;Ormrod, 2013;Sichivitsa, 2007;Slavin, 2006). In addition to these factors, especially motivation is another important psychological factor that affects success in instrument training. In this study, the phenomenon of motivation in instrument training in the context of music teacher education is examined. For this purpose, in the conceptual framework; motivation, motivation in the learningteaching process, instrument training-motivation relationship, and related research are presented with an overview from the perspective of educational psychology. the student in the learning process. Although this authoritarian approach is motivating for some students, it results in negative effects such as less participation, low learning and low study motivation for most students, and impacts affective characteristics negatively (Evans & Bonneville-Roussy, 2016;Jørgensen, 2000). However, it is known that affective characteristics guide behavior and cognition (Evans & Bonneville-Roussy, 2016) and affect learning by 11% to 27% (Asmus, 1985(Asmus, , 1994Bloom, 1995;Maehr & Archer, 1985). According to Cattell and Butcher (1968), approximately 25% of academic success can be explained with motivational factors (cited in Cattell, Barton, & Dielman, 1972, p. 35). The variability of success in music education can be attributed to motivation from 12% to 27% (Asmus, 1985;Chandler, Chiarella, & Auria, 1987). In this context, motivation is an element that should not be ignored by instrument teachers in in-class communication and interaction processes.
Providing musical memory gains such as improvisation, creativity, and the development of interpretation and fighting stage fear, practice is a complex phenomenon involving numerous physical and mental processes (Barry & Hallam, 2002;Barry & McArthur, 1994;Jørgensen & Hallam, 2016).
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020INASED Ömür (2011 reminds that in the process of professional instrument training, the teachers hear sentences such as 'I have difficulty in finding an empty room when I come to school', 'I don't work hard enough for my instrument', 'I am talentless in playing an instrument', 'I think I will not be able to play this piece', 'I am a bad instrument student' from students and he points out that each sentence refers to many individual and environmental variables that affect motivation in instrument training. Instrument teachers constantly encounter the motivation/amotivation problem emphasized by Ömür (Burak, 2014;Cheng & Southcott, 2016;Schmidt, 2005;Squires, 2017). It is known that this problem has been investigated for many years. In a scientific event organized with the theme of music, creativity, and motivation in the early 1980s, it is emphasized that the decrease in students' participation and interest in music is a professional problem, empirical research on the relationship between motivation and music is insufficient and many different motivational sources can be effective in students' orientation to music and success in the field of music (Austin & Vispoel, 1992;English, Knieter, & Lehman, 1983;Hodges, 2003;Zimmerman, 2005). Theoretical studies conducted after this date (Asmus, 1994;Evans, 2015Evans, , 2016Hallam, 2002;Maehr et al., 2002;Martin, Collie, & Evans, 2016;McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002;Sichivitsa, 2001) and research conducted in different models (Asmus, 1985(Asmus, , 1986a(Asmus, , 1986bAustin, 1988aAustin, , 1988bAustin & Vispoel, 1992, 1998Colwell et al., 2018;Davidson et al., 1995;Evans, 2009;Kwan, 2007;Legette, 1998;Sandene, 1997;Schmidt, 1995Schmidt, , 2005Sichivitsa, 2007;Zimmerman, 2005) provide strong evidence that the motivation phenomenon in the context of music and instrument education is associated with many individual variables such as self-confidence, self-esteem, aptitude perception, past musical experiences, goals, use of cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulation skills, internal attributes, practice habits and strategies as well as with many environmental variables such as teacher, family, sibling, peer, classroom atmosphere, goal structure, difficulty of task, academic and social integration, and corporate culture.

Literature Review
In the literature, it is seen that instrument training and motivation related studies are mostly carried out within the framework of modern motivation theories and approaches such as attribution, self-efficacy, self-determination, self-regulation, expectancy-value, flow. In a series of studies based on attribution theory, it is determined that the vast majority of students taking voice, choir, instrument, and general music education attribute their achievements in musical behavior to internal motivation sources such as effort and ability rather than external motivation sources such as luck or difficulty of the task (Asmus, 1985(Asmus, , 1986a(Asmus, , 1986bAsmus, 1987, cited in Asmus, 1994Austin & Vispoel, 1998;Kwan, 2007;Schatt, 2011;Schmidt, 1995). Also in some studies, it is observed that students attribute their failures to motivational resources such as effective practice strategies, peer support, and teacher feedback (Austin & Vispoel, 1992;Chandler et al., 1987;Dick, 2006). Different studies focusing on music education (Burak, 2013;Legette, 1998;Schmidt, 1995) and instrument training (Austin, 1988a(Austin, , 1988bDick, 2006;McPherson & McCormick, 2000;Özmenteş, 2012;Sandene, Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020INASED 76 1997) based on attribution theory provide similar findings. In studies that test the effect of musical self-confidence and positive/negative feedback attributes on motivation, decision-making processes and instrument success in learning-teaching processes designed according to competitive and individualized goal structures; it is seen that both purpose structures do not make a significant difference on success and motivation (Austin, 1988a;Austin & Vispoel, 1992;Dick, 2006), however, self-confidence and teacher feedback are effective on effort, ability, affective attributes, motivation and course success in instrument training (Austin, 1988a;Sandene, 1997), and students with a highlevel of self-perception attribute their achievements to ability (Austin & Vispoel, 1998). There are also findings showing that students learn better and are motivated better internally in instrument learningteaching environments designed according to cooperative goal structures rather than competitive or individualized goal structures (Schmidt, 2005). In research carried out from different theoretical perspectives, especially self-determination theory, it is emphasized that when students' competence, relatedness, and autonomy needs are met, and they are provided with environments that encourage the use of self-regulated and meta-cognitive strategies that encourage critical thinking by the teacher, the motivation of students in the context of instrument training increases, on the contrary cases the process fails (Alexander, 2015;Evans, 2009;Hallam, 2001;Legutki, 2010;MacIntyre & Potter, 2014; McPherson, Osborne, Barrett, Davidson, & Faulkner, 2015;McPherson & Zimmerman, 2002;Zimmerman, 2005).

The Aim of the Study
As can be understood from the summary of the literature, achievement and motivation increase when instrument training is designed with an approach that takes into account intrinsic motivation sources and when learning-teaching environments that meet the expectations of students are presented. Also, the influence of factors such as practice strategies, feedback, teaching methods, the purpose structure of the class on autonomy perception, and intrinsic motivation is obvious. Again, as emphasized in many studies, the teacher is one of the dynamics that have the power to control, change and direct these variables that affect motivation (Asmus, 1986b;Austin & Vispoel, 1998;Gembris & Davidson, 2002;Hallam, 2002;Pike, 2011;Sandene, 1997;Schmidt, 1995Schmidt, , 2005Tucker, 2018;Zimmerman, 2005). Yet, music and instrument teachers tend to use more supervisory and external sources of motivation instead of pursuing strategies that support autonomy and intrinsic motivation in the teaching process (Legutki, 2010;McPherson, Miksza, & Evans, 2011). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in motivational studies in instrument training, but the motivational factors surrounding instrument learning-teaching processes can be overlooked by related people and syllabi. The research has provided important information about the causes and consequences of motivational behavior. Nevertheless, more systematic studies are needed on how or why motivation occurs in musical contexts (Asmus & Harrison, 1990;Austin & Vispoel, 1992;Cantero & Jauset-Berrocal, 2017;Maehr et al., 2002;West, 2013). In addition, music motivation Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 © 2020 INASED 77 models underline the impact of social and cultural backgrounds on musical behavior and motivation.
Although motivation is a universal phenomenon, some environmental resources may not be universal.
Most cultural differences reflected in the behavior of an individual are basically motivational differences. Motivation does not only reflect the individual's unique desires, but also the characteristics of the cultural and social structure and norms to which it is attached. In other words, culture and social structure are the elements that shape motivation (Morling & Kitayama, 2008). In this context, all the research that will be conducted with students with different socio-economic and socio-cultural characteristics in different countries, different schools, and different geographical regions may provide important information to help explain the relationship between instrument training and motivation. Based on these opinions, the aim of the study is to examine the motivations of a group of music teacher candidates who are representatives of a certain socio-economic and sociocultural structure towards the individual instrument training lesson. The results are mostly discussed within the framework of the dynamics of the research group and the city and the possible effects of corporate culture on the results are emphasized. The study is considered to be important in terms of addressing the phenomenon of motivation in instrument training from a different perspective that is not included in current research in national literature.

Research Model
The research has been structured according to the single survey and relational survey models, both being general survey models. "General survey models are the survey arrangements made on the entire population or a group, sample or sampling taken from it, in a population consisting of many elements, to make a general judgment about the population. With general survey models, single or relational surveys can be done" (Karasar, 2014, p. 79). In this context, the answers to the questions, 'What is the motivation level of music teacher candidates for instrument lesson?', 'Does motivation level differ according to gender, graduated high school, grade level, choosing the instrument voluntarily and practice time of the instrument?' and 'Is there a significant relationship between motivation and instrument course success?', are sought in the study.

The Scope of the Research
The study was carried out with 86 students enrolled in the Music Teacher Training Program of a public university. The results are not generalizable since the research was conducted with a study group of limited participants. On the other hand, the results are comparable to the results of the research to be carried out in different cities and universities with the same or similar characteristics as the city and university where this research was conducted. The socio-economic and socio-cultural structure of the city where the research was carried out and the students as well as the possibilities and applications of the institution are presented below in a general summary.

The City
Located in the interior of the Central Black Sea Region, the city is very rich in historical heritage and cultural texture. It has a positive city image in terms of agriculture and agricultural products, natural beauty, security, cuisine, and climate structure. The people are most helpful, friendly, hospitable, and attached to their traditions (Sadaklıoğlu & Aşık, 2019). However, according to the SEGE (2013) and OKA (2014) Reports, the city differs from many cities in terms of dynamics and socio-economic structures such as employment, education, health, accessibility, quality of life, poverty, production, and income. The city, where the transformation from agriculture to the industry has not been sufficiently realized, is far below the average of the region and country in terms of gross domestic product and other indicators of socio-economic development (Barış, 2019). The young population migrates to different cities due to their low employment opportunities. However, the city receives immigration from the surrounding rural areas. Social recreation areas in the city are also insufficient (OKA, 2014).

The Study Group
According to the research of Kiraz (2015), the socio-economic levels of students who prefer the university in the city are very low. Students mostly have a nuclear family structure and generally come from the lower and lower-middle classes. Most of the students live in the houses they rent together with a group of 5-7 friends, due to the insufficient number of dormitories, and they spend a large part of their monthly income, which is concentrated between 200-400 Turkish Lira, on nutrition and accommodation, and almost no share for entertainment. Fathers are generally the bread-winners in the families of students. Mothers are mostly domestic workers, who do not have a social security.
Descriptive features of the study group determined as research variable is given in Table 1. 14% for 11 hours and over.

The Institution 
The number of academic staff in the music education institution where the research was carried out is relatively adequate in comparison to many other institutions in the context of the minimum requirements for effective teaching. There is at least one field specialist instructor with 10 or more years of experience in string instrument family (except contrabass), flute, and guitar branches.
The shortcoming in the field of Turkish music instruments is covered with the support provided by the University's Turkish Music State Conservatory. Since its establishment, the institution has the lowest student quota in Music Teacher Training Programs in Turkey. In addition to 1 concert hall and 4 classrooms, it provides education in its own specially equipped building with approximately 50 practice rooms. Every two students have the opportunity to study in one practice room. In-studio lessons, combining the students is not observed, and instrument lessons are carried out one-to-one under the nature of the lesson. Exams are conducted by the commissions formed according to the instrument type. Concert activities, which have an important place in the development of music identity, enable teacher-student interaction, and have advantages such as role-models through the stage performance of the teacher, are carried out intensely with the influence of the academic incentive application. Another issue that the institution emphasizes is the instrument selection method. The choice of instruments in the institution is made primarily in line with the preferences of the students and it is guided by instructors according to the criteria such as physical fitness and accessibility. Also, students who do not have financial means to obtain a good instrument are provided with Turkish and Western instruments registered in the inventory of the institution without any time limit.

Data Collection Tools
In the research, The Motivation for Individual Instrument Classes Scale  (Girgin, 2015) and demographic data form were used. The motivation scale had a three-factor structure consisting of 25 In this study, Alpha values were calculated as .93 for the overall and amotivational dimension, .84 for achievement motivation dimension, and .86 for motivation for studying dimension. In the scale, a 5point Likert-type rating, consisting of choices between 'I fully agree (5)…I never agree (1)' was used.
The items in the amotivational dimension were reverse coded. In the scale, the lowest 25 points and the highest 125 points can be achieved. The scale can also be used in a singular dimension. Although the original text states that the scale has a one-dimensional structure, there is no information about under which title the points will be explained if the scale is used as one-dimensional. Therefore, in this study, 'General Motivation' title was used within the knowledge of Demet Girgin to express the scores obtained from the scale. The scores from each dimension and the overall scale are given separately in the results section. While interpreting the scores, the score range between 1.00-2.33 was used for lowlevel motivation, 2.34-3.66 for medium-level motivation, and 3.67-5.00 for high-level motivation. The demographic data form contained questions about the music teacher candidates' gender, grade level, graduated high school, weekly instrument practice time, and method of choosing instruments. The individual instrument course success scores of the study group were collected from the advisor database. Necessary permissions for the research were obtained from the relevant institution.

Data Analysis
The arithmetic mean and standard deviation values from descriptive statistical techniques were calculated to determine the motivation levels of the music teacher candidates for individual instrument lessons. Statistical hypothesis tests were applied to determine the univariate normality assumption. For this purpose, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (N>30) and Shapiro-Wilk (N<30) statistics analytical test values and skewness-kurtosis values of each data group analyzed were examined. For the normality assumption, ±1, ±1.5, ±1.96, ±2, ±3, ±3.29 values are recommended in the literature. In this study, the ±2 approach (George & Mallery, 2019, p. 114-115) was taken into consideration in the examination of skewness and kurtosis values. T-test and ANOVA were applied for normally distributed data groups whereas Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied for non-normally distributed data groups. Spearman Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between motivation and success. For the level of significance p<.05 was taken as reference. In cases where the difference was significant in variance analysis, Fisher's LSD test, which is one of the multiple comparison tests, was used. Bonferroni adjustment (p=α/k=.05/3=.017) was made for the significance value in the LSD Test. In the results, where the difference between the binary groups was significant, the effect size, which is an indicator of practical meaningfulness, was examined. In the calculation of the effect size, Cohen's d (δ) formula was used for the t-test. Cohen's d value was interpreted according to small-up to 0.2, medium up to 0.5, large up to 0.8, very large up to 1.3 effect value criteria (Cohen, 1977;Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). For the Mann-Whitney U test, r=Z/√ formula was used to calculate the effect size. The effect size value was interpreted according to .10=small, .30=medium, and .50=large criteria (Cohen, 1977, p. 82). In the variance analysis, the eta square (η²) formula which is a value for the variance estimated by the sample was used to determine the effect size in the results where the difference was significant. SPSS program was used for data analysis.

Results
In this chapter, there are 1) descriptive results regarding students' motivation levels of musical instrument lesson, 2) results that show whether motivation level differs according to gender, graduated high school, grade level, choosing the instrument voluntarily and instrument practice time; and 3) results showing the relationship between motivation and course success. According to Table 3b, the students' achievement motivation (t (84) =-1.44 p>.05) and motivation for studying (t (84) =-1.41 p>.05) scores do not differ significantly by gender. In contrast, general motivation scores differ statistically by gender (t (84) =-2.07 p<.05). The general motivation score of male students ( =4.28) is higher than the average of female students ( =4.02). The effect size for the difference is at medium-level (δ=.48).     According to Table 6a, amotivation (U=230.5 p<.05) and general motivation (U=230.5 p<.05) scores of the students show a significant difference according to their choosing the instrument voluntarily. When the mean rank is taken into account, amotivation ( rank =46.84) and general motivation ( rank =47.13) scores of the students who chose their instruments voluntarily are higher than amotivation ( rank =24.73) and general motivation ( rank =23.12) scores of the students who did not choose voluntarily. The effect size values related to the differentiation in amotivation (r=.32) and general motivation (r=.34) dimensions are at medium-level. voluntarily. In both sub-dimensions, achievement motivation ( =4.44) and motivation for studying ( =3.54) scores of the students who chose their instruments voluntarily are higher than achievement motivation ( =3.88) and motivation for studying ( =2.85) scores of the students who did not choose their instruments voluntarily. The effect size values for the difference in between indicate very highlevels (δ=1.09) for achievement motivation and high-levels (δ=.78) for motivation for studying. In Table 7a, it is seen that there is a significant difference between amotivation scores of the students according to the practice time of the instrument [² (2) =15.15 p<.017]. According to Fisher's LSD test result applied for identifying the source of the difference; the scores of the students who practice 1-5 hours ( rank =34.80) are statistically lower than those who practice for 6-10 hours ( rank =53.60) and 11 hours and over ( rank =59.54). Although the difference is not significant, again, the motivation points of the students who practice 6-10 hours are lower than those of the students who practice 11 hours and over. According to the eta square (η 2 =.16) value showing the effect size; students' instrument practice time explains 16% of amotivation scores throughout the sample.  Analysis andStrategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 © 2020 INASED 85 students practicing 11 hours and over ( =4.68). On the other hand, motivation for studying point averages of the students who practice 1-5 hours ( =3.03) are statistically lower than the average of those who practice 6-10 hours ( =3.84) and those practicing 11 hours and over ( =4.35). Similarly, the average motivation points of the students who practicing 1-5 hours ( =3.89) are still lower than the average of the students practicing 6-10 hours ( =4.36) and those practicing 11 hours and over ( =4.60). According to eta square values; students' instrument practice time explains 13% of achievement motivation scores (η 2 =.13), 36% of motivation for studying scores (η 2 =.36), and 26% of general motivation scores (η 2 =.26) throughout the sample. According to the results in Table 8, there is a medium-level, significant and positive relationship between the instrument course success and amotivation (r s =.53 p<.05), achievement motivation (r s =.39 p<.05), motivation for studying (r s =.51 p<.05) and general motivation (r s =.55 p<.05) scores. Our result can be interpreted that the instrument course success and motivation affect each other and that the highly motivated students are more successful. Considering the determination coefficient respectively (r s ²=0.28/r s ²=0.15/r s ²=0.26/r s ²=0.30), it can be said that 28% of the variability in the course success is caused by amotivation, 15% from achievement motivation, 26% from motivation for studying, and 30% from general motivation or vice versa.

Conclusion and Discussion
Being conducted to determine the motivations of the music teacher candidates for individual instrument lessons and to examine their relationship with various variables; in this research, it is observed that a) the motivation levels of the candidates are high; b) motivation scores do not differ according to gender, graduated high school, and grade level, but differ significantly in favor of students who choose their instrument voluntarily and devote more time to practice the instrument and c) there is a positive and significant relationship between motivation and course success.
The literature provides different results on the subject. In the research conducted by Durgun (2018) with a group of music students, it was seen that the students have a high level of instrument motivation and their motivation scores did not differ according to the grade level. In Kurtuldu and Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020INASED Aksu's (2015 study, it was found that the instrument motivation levels of the music teacher candidates were again high, but the motivation scores differed in the variables of grade level, graduation, and gender. According to the study, women had higher motivation than men, and graduates of Fine Arts High School also had higher motivation than other high school graduates, and motivation decreased as the grade level increases. In Erdem's (2013) study, it was revealed that motivation did not differ according to gender and graduated high school, however, the motivation of students who chose their instruments voluntarily was higher than students who did not choose voluntarily. In another study (Çalışkan, 2008), it was also found that musical instrument motivation did not change according to grade level; that the motivation scores did not differ in the interest, educational atmosphere, and environment sub-dimensions of the scale used in the research, but differed in the professional expectation sub-dimension; that women had higher motivation than men, graduates of Fine Arts High School had higher motivation than other high school graduates; and the students who choose their instruments voluntarily also had high-level motivation scores. Despite the different results presented, common conclusions have been reached in studies showing that there is a positive and significant relationship between instrument success and motivation (Çalışkan, 2008;Durgun, 2018;Kurtuldu & Aksu, 2015).
Based on the findings and results of the relevant research, it can be said that it is difficult to make strong predictions about the effect or role of some of the variables discussed to explain the motivation phenomenon in the context of instrument training. The question of gender differences, which has gained importance in the field of educational psychology since the 1970s (Santrock, 2018;Slavin, 2006) and is controversial (Lichtenfeld & Stupnisky, 2013;Martin, 2007;Wigfield & Eccles, 2002), remains uncertain in motivational studies in music education and instrument training (Burak, 2013(Burak, , 2014Legette, 1998;Martin et al., 2016;McPherson et al., 2015;Sandene, 1997;Schatt, 2011;Schmidt, 2005). Similar uncertainty applies to the grade level variable (Asmus, 1985(Asmus, , 1986a(Asmus, , 1986bBurak, 2013;Kwan, 2007;Legette, 1998;Martin, 2007;Sandene, 1997;Schmidt, 1995). It is known that past musical experiences have positive effects on motivation regarding musical behavior (Asmus, 1987, cited in Asmus, 1994Sichivitsa, 2001). However, it is seen that some results (Çalışkan, 2008;Kurtuldu & Aksu, 2015) do not match with our result showing that the motivation scores of Fine Arts High School and other high school graduates do not differ. Despite these results, as seen in studies focusing on the effects of environmental factors such as peers, teachers, and families in instrument selection, the motivation of students who chose their instruments voluntarily and their tendency to pursue musical activities are higher than those who chose as a result of environmental pressures (Austin, 1990;Cantero & Jauset-Berrocal, 2017). Similarly, most research results highlight the positive and significant relationship between instrument practice behavior and motivation and success (Kılınç, 2017;Özmenteş, 2012;Wan & Gregory, 2018). According to some studies (Asmus, 1985(Asmus, , 1986a(Asmus, , 1994Chandler et al., 1987), approximately 25% of the variability in success in music Educational Policy Analysis andStrategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 © 2020 INASED education can be explained with motivation. In general terms; contrary to gender, grade level and graduated school variables, it is seen that the results are consistent with the study results that reveal the relationship between motivation and instrument course success, instrument choice method, and instrument study behavior.
In Turkey, Music Teacher Training Programs select the students with special aptitude exams that are the same or similar in terms of content and application form. In all these institutions, instrument training courses are conducted according to the Central Bachelor's Program for Music Teacher Training. In other words, contrary to the research results carried out especially from the perspective of attribution theory, variables of musical aptitude and curriculum may be insufficient singly to explain students' motivation for instrument lessons depending on the cultural structure and application differences in the education system. As Aydın (2007) stated, It should be emphasized that any theoretical approach cannot explain the behavior in all aspects and regardless of the socio-cultural context, human beings cannot be reduced to a single prototype that has a common feature in all conditions and periods. Therefore, besides the environmental variables such as the application of the curriculum, the field competence of the instrument teacher, the preferred teaching methods and approaches, the quality of the teaching-learning processes; the social and economic characteristics of the city and the study group, and the corporate culture, which represents the facilities, applications and educational environments offered to the students are especially considered to be important factors to explain the high level of motivation.
As explained in the method section, the city where the research is conducted differs from many others in terms of socio-economic structure and dynamics. The social and cultural activities offered by the city cannot fully meet the demands of university students, who come from different cities and different social backgrounds, and who have different expectations due to the identity naturally created by being 'university student'. However, the table in the method section, which summarizes the difficult living conditions of the study group, suggests that the 'economic strength' of students is not enough to participate in most of the city's social activities. This social integration problem between the city and the student results in the students spending more time in the institution where they study instead of the city. On the other hand, it can be said that the patriarchal-based socioeconomic structure owned by the study group creates "a good future" anxiety among the music teacher candidates. University education, which constitutes an important step in professional socialization, actually means a 'future' for these students rather than a profession. Although research shows that music teachers in Turkey have to deal with some organizational problems, experience a certain level of burnout and do not experience a qualified professional socialization process in pre-service and inservice training (Kalyoncu, 2011;Korkmaz, 2004;, the undesirable picture does not negatively affect the expectations and desires of the music teacher candidates to be included in the teaching profession. Because, despite all the negativities Educational Policy Analysis andStrategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 © 2020 INASED in the context of the profession, both female and male students need this profession for their economic freedom. According to the expectancy-value theory; the value that a person places on a task affects the choice of task, the effort to be made, and motivation. An individual's answer to the question "Why should I join this profession?" may vary depending on cognitive and environmental factors. For example, the individual may choose to take part in a particular task, as he finds it encouraging or is valued by the culture in which he lives. In other words, factors in the social world can direct students' goals, preferences, and motivational beliefs (Schunk, 2012;Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2002. It is known that the factors that motivate the individual are quite complex, and the organization with which he is affiliated, along with economic and psycho-social factors, also plays a motivating role. Personal motives that determine the individual's desires and needs may change direction, lose or gain power over time with the effect of a social organization such as university (Şimşek, Çelik, & Akgemci, 2013). Many universities in Turkey are unable to fully meet the expectations of society and youth for different reasons, in other words, the ideal university concept that universities offer and students dream of does not match (Tural & Şahin, 2013). In contrast, unlike students enrolled in other programs of the university where the research is conducted (Kiraz, 2015), it is also taken into account that the majority of the research group consciously and willingly chose their institutions, it is thought that the goals and expectations of the students for music education and the ideal university education in their minds coincide, the promise of the 'future' offered by the Music Teacher Training Program and the more time spent in the institution strengthen the sense of belonging towards the institution and this connection affects the motivation positively.
As mentioned in the introduction, the research emphasizes the effect of the teacher on motivation. When a teacher's field competence, feedback, teaching approach, and the learningteaching environment s/he offers are approved by students, students are motivated more. In addition, some elements such as instrument practice conditions, concert events, instrument quality, the way of structuring lessons and exams, instrument selection methods are also known to affect motivation. As can be remembered, in the study, it was found that the motivation scores differ significantly in favor of the students who chose their instruments with their preference, and the effect value of the difference between the general motivation scores was at the 'medium' level. This result shows that there is a relationship between motivation and musical instrument selection method. One of the most obvious differences between musicians is instrument selection. The instrument is part of the student's identity rather than a physical object (MacIntyre & Potter, 2014), and the choice of the instrument is often driven by intrinsic motivation (Driscoll, 2009). For this reason, it is important for the student to choose an instrument suitable for his/her personality, in the communication and interaction processes in the lesson, to maintain musical activities and motivation (Driscoll, 2009;McPherson et al., 2016;Turhal et al., 2018). On the other hand, music motivation models provide important information about motivational factors that affect musical behavior. For example, according to Hallam's (2002) model, Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 which examines the motivational factors in the process of starting and continuing instrument training, the interaction of personal goals and environmental factors affects the motivation and subsequent behavior of the student. Similarly, according to Sichivitsa's (2001) model, the individual's future goals and preferences, and his/her academic and social integration in the university education process, are the main motivational factors that affect musical behavior. The match between the goals determined by needs, expectations and interests and university education affects students' motivation positively.
Another factor that has the power to influence motivation is corporate culture. It is known that effective schools develop a climate or 'culture' that supports academic success. The way schools are organized in terms of leadership, curriculum, administrative functioning, and teaching practices can affect students' productivity and motivation (Maehr & Archer, 1985). In this context, it can be said that the study group's future goals and preferences shaped by their social and cultural backgrounds and the opportunities and the student-oriented practices that the institution they study offers, in other words, the corporate culture described in the method section are matched and the social and academic integrations of the students are realized. It is thought that this situation positively affects motivation for instrument lessons, which has an important role in the acquisition of musical behavior styles and the development of professional identity perception.
In the study, two remarkable results related to each other were detected. Although it does not affect the general level of motivation, students' motivation for studying is at a medium-level (see Table 2). However, the motivation scores differ significantly according to the frequency of practice (see Table 7a and 7b). The eta square value determined regarding the meaningful difference between motivation for studying and practice behavior can be interpreted as a strong relationship between these two variables. It is possible to support these results with some studies (Austin & Vispoel, 1992;Chandler et al., 1987;Dick, 2006). There are many internal and external factors that affect practice behavior and motivation. For example, according to Hallam (2006), Kılınç (2017), and Squires (2017); many variables affect students' motivation to practice instruments such as the selection of instruments and pieces, autonomy in determining practice time and duration, perception of musical ability, the intensity of other field courses, health status, effort to satisfy the teacher, physical suitability of the studying environment, social and educational feedbacks, qualifications of the teacher, economic situation, goals, attitudes. Some researchers emphasize the importance of structuring the instrument practice process (Davidson et al., 2009;Hallam, 2001;Özmenteş, 2012). Structuring the process is related to the use of effective instrument strategies. It is known that students who use metacognitive skills and self-regulation strategies in the instrument practice process have high success and motivation (Bilen, 2007;Hallam, 2001Hallam, , 2006Kılınç, 2017;Nielsen, 1999;Pike, 2011;Yokuş & Yokuş, 2010). However, when compared with professional musicians, it is seen that students taking instrument training do not follow a consistent and structured approach in the instrument practice process (Austin & Berg, 2006;Bilen, 2007;Davidson et al., 2009;Hallam, 2001), and there is a Educational Policy Analysis andStrategic Research, V 15, N 3, 2020 © 2020 INASED complex relationship between the use of strategies in these students (Hallam, 2001). In this context, the result suggests that the study group does not have sufficient knowledge in terms of practice strategies, that they are exposed to some factors that affect the practice behavior and cannot be controlled by the institution and lecturers. Practice behavior is seen by the author as a strong rationale for explaining the medium-level scores obtained in the motivation for studying sub-dimension.

Recommendations
University life is not just a time in which students aim for academic success. It is also a period when they try to meet their social and personal needs and expectations. However, students who find themselves in a completely different social network with university life face many issues such as adapting to the academic and social environment, coping with basic problems such as nutrition and shelter, achieving independence within the social freedoms they acquire, and questioning their relationships with friends and the opposite sex (Kiraz, 2015;Özgüner & Özdemir, 2016). It is thought that this personal development and social integration process may have some positive and negative effects, especially on the musical instrument practice motivation. Examining student feedback will be more meaningful for these problematic subjects. To identify social and academic factors affecting instrument practice behavior and practice motivation, it is recommended to conduct qualitative research that offers 'in-depth data' such as focus group interviews with different student groups with high, medium, and low motivation levels and practice time.
"Most areas of education are slow to adapt to changing views that are based on research evidence, and this is particularly prominent in music education" (McPherson et al., 2011: 191). It can be said that motivation research in music education and instrument training, which have a history of about half a century, has gained an important accumulation in international literature and this accumulation has found a response in the curriculum in recent years. Motivation has also been extensively addressed in the national literature. However, apart from some remarkable studies, it is seen that a priori research results and knowledge originating from abroad have not been/could not be fully reflected in national literature or 'overlooked'. The same problem exists in studies aiming for the development of a national origin motivation scale, which is employed for different instrument branches and requires a strong conceptual/theoretical framework. In this sense, it is recommended to conduct studies introducing models and scales and to conduct empirical studies that test their validity in Turkish culture and education system.