students’ experienced workload and their ability to manage it. In that regard, higher education institutions have been called to support students to cope with their workloads (Kember, 2004), for example, through orientation or induction programmes, counselling, and stress-, life-, and time-management techniques (e.g., Bernhard, 2010; Kausar, 2010; Renard & Snelgar, 2015).
Previous research shows that workload affects students’ engagement with studying (Chambers, 1992), their quality of learning (Kyndt et al., 2014), and students’ mental health in higher education (Porru et al., 2022). Although a heavy workload often has negative connotations among students (Kyndt et al., 2014), a bigger workload is not necessarily bad. Thus, Marsh (2001) argues that defining a good or bad workload depends on how it affects students’ learning. According to Karjalainen et al. (2008), the aim should be to create circumstances in which the workload is appropriate for students to have enough time for studying within their individual capacity as a learner.
In addition, the timing and number of assessments should be feasible (Giles, 2009). An overload may also harm the students’ well-being and study success (Hernesniemi et al., 2017). On the other hand, an overly light workload may
lead to students losing interest in learning (Marsh, 2001). Thus, studying conditions with an appropriate workload may encourage students to find their own interest in learning. That, in turn, motivates them to take a deep approach to studying (Chambers, 1992), and to explore even more commitments and challenges within their studies (Marsh, 2001).
In previous research, student workload has been categorised as objective workload (number of hours spent on studying as an average student) and
subjective workload (a particular student’s characteristics and experience connected to the given circumstances for studying) (Bowyer, 2012). Kember and Leung (1998) argue that the objective workload explains only a very small part of the variance of students’ perceived workload. Therefore, instead of measuring students’ actual study time, they suggest investigating students’
perceived workload (Kember, 2004; Kember & Leung, 2006). The perceived workload—or subjective workload—is a complex combination of the demands of studying and the effect of these demands on the student (Kyndt et al., 2014).
Following these suggestions about perceived workload, the MSW project concentrated on investigating music students’ subjective, personal, and individual experiences of workload rather than reporting objective measures (such as time spent studying, completed credits, grades, or effects on memory and cognition). Thus, in line with previous research on students’ perceptions of workload, in this dissertation, workload is considered a complex construct as suggested by Kember and Leung (2006), composed of various components and effects. The approach is holistic, considering the nature, meaning, and components of workload, students’ curriculum-related workload (e.g., attendance at lectures, rehearsals, and practice sessions), and extracurricular activities that may contribute to experienced workload (e.g., paid and unpaid work). The interest is in all aspects of the students’ positive, negative, or neutral experiences of workload in their studies. These experiences include students’
perceptions of the components of workload, its contributing factors, and consequences.
As such, the workload definition is derived from the Finnish term kuormittavuus (load). According to the Finnish Thesaurus and Ontology Service (Finto, 2022), this encompasses the burden related to work under-
and overload, and includes both physical (e.g., musculoskeletal strain) and psychological (e.g., cognitive, ethical, emotional, mental, and psychosocial) aspects of workload. This dissertation considers that these aspects of workload can potentially be experienced in positive, neutral, or negative ways to different degrees.8
Furthermore, in this dissertation the particular interest is in the effects of the institutional practices in a specific field—namely, in higher music
education—on music students’ experienced workload. According to Westerlund (2003), music students’ meaningful experiences while studying consist of both agency and social interaction. Thus, the lived and the practical perspective of the everyday life of students should be the starting point when exploring music in education, as well as studies in higher music education. “The musical experience is not a question of pure acoustic perception but is a much more complex mixture of musical doings and undergoings within the social and cultural environment” Westerlund (2003, p. 233) states.
3.1.1 Music students’ workload
Experienced workload differs between students because perceptions are strongly connected to students’ personal experiences (Kyndt et al., 2014) and are specific to the individual (Pardos et al., 2022). Likewise, the perceptions of workload in a higher education context for music students differ from those in other disciplines, as they entail specific aspects and social contexts that are unique to music students. For example, bodily experiences are especially important in higher music education (Bresler, 2005), as music is made through and with the musician’s body, and skill development in music is likely to
It is worth noting that in the Finnish language the concept of workload (kuormittavuus) is often considered as a neutral experience—more like an ideal and balanced load. In the research collaboration between Finland and the United Kingdom, it became evident that, in the English language, the concept of workload is considered more like overload than balanced load. There is another concept of workload in the Finnish language (kuormittunut) which refers to being overloaded, however that wording was not used in the Finnish research materials, in order to allow the participants to think about their workload experiences in as comprehensive a way as possible.
8
be more complex than in many other fields. When compared to many other learning environments, higher music education is a more competitive social environment, as it includes public juries, auditions, and competitions for music students (e.g., Long et al., 2012).
Moreover, music students face many physical and psychological demands that affect their well-being in studying. There is a growing amount of research available examining the issues specific to them, such as music students’ painful musculoskeletal conditions (e.g., Cruder et al., 2018; Ginsborg et al., 2009; Zetterberg et al., 1998), health issues (e.g., Araújo et al., 2017;
Perkins et al., 2017); performance anxiety (e.g., Matei & Ginsborg, 2017);
and burnout (e.g., Zabuska et al., 2018). In the previously published research on studying music, workload is connected to the negative consequences that difficult or unmanageable study situations may result in for music students, such as burnout (Bernhard, 2007a) and mental illness (Koops & Kuebel, 2021). Students may have a heavy workload, measured objectively, but this is not necessarily experienced as a negative thing if they are passionate about their work and choose to do it. For example, music students’ experiences of meaningful engagement in music, such as their passion and love for music, can be positive aspects of their workload (e.g., Bonneville-Roussy & Vallerand, 2020; Park et al., 2007). On the other hand, even if the source of workload is positive for music students, such as the enjoyment of playing an instrument, the consequences for well-being can be harmful, for example musculoskeletal pain (Cruder et al., 2018).
Research on student workload could be used to identify good practices to support students’ learning, develop teaching, and create proper administrative systems in higher education (Smith, 2019). In addition, if music students’
health, well-being, learning (Koops & Kuebel, 2021), and future careers (López-Íñiguez & Bennett, 2021) are to be supported, it is essential to gain a better understanding of the pressures on them and the resources available to them, ideally by finding out about their experiences directly from them.
3.1.2 Music students’ stress
Students’ overload experiences are often connected to stress (Holloway et al., 2020). Lazarus and Folkman (1984, p. 19) define stress as “a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being”. Because workload and stress are combined in a complex way, scholars investigating students’ workload emphasise that more research is needed: in particular about students’ time and stress management, and how increasing coping skills can affect students’ ability to deal with workload, learning, distress, and burnout in higher education (Amirkhan & Kofman, 2018;
Jacobs & Dodd, 2003; Kember, 2004). For example, Deasy et al. (2014) found in their study on psychological distress and coping among higher education students that many students’ reported stress was related to their perceived workload. These authors suggest that “real recognition of the deleterious impact of student stress is needed in order to foster more proactive engagement with student stress by higher education providers” (Deasy et al., 2014, p. 19).
Indeed, studying in higher education includes many pressures connected to workload that cause stress for students, such as exams, overlapping
deadlines, negative feedback (Holloway et al., 2020), curriculum (Kember, 2004), student life, finance-related issues, and balancing work with studying (Pereira et al., 2019). The workload can be experienced as stressful, but it is not always a negative experience if the stress leads to increased motivation and better attainments in studying (Smith, 2019). However, suppose students’
psychological distress—a transient emotional response to stress—is left untreated. This can cause depression and anxiety and lead to risky behaviour, physical illness, and more serious mental health disorders (Deasy et al., 2014).
Previous research indicates that there are specific stressors affecting music students’ studies, such as performance anxiety (Matei & Ginsborg, 2017), perfectionism (Bernhard, 2007a), stage fright (Nogaj, 2017), critical incidents (López-Íñiguez & Burnard, 2022), and career concerns as musicians (López- Íñiguez & Bennett, 2021). In addition, differences in stress have been reported, particularly between genders; female music students report experiencing more stress than male music students (Zetterberg et al., 1998).
3.1.3 Proactive coping styles
In addition to time load and psychological stress, Pardos et al. (2022) suggest investigating multi-faceted student workload in higher education with the component of mental effort, which influences the strategies used to deal with the complexity and cognitive difficulty of completing a task. Indeed, students’
psychological well-being can be supported by teaching them to use effective coping skills, which they can also utilise in their future careers (Deasy et al., 2014). For example, in effective coping, students proactively utilise preventive strategies before they face stressful situations or their workload accumulates to an unmanageable level. Students cope differently with their workload and stress—some students use positive methods such as seeking social support and leisure activities; however, some students use maladaptive strategies such as substance use, comfort eating, or ignoring stressful situations (Deasy et al., 2014). Understanding music students’ coping with diverse experiences of workload and stress is crucial for institutions to support students’ proactive coping in multiple positive ways, as described above. Thus, in order to find and demonstrate positive ways for institutions to support music students’ coping, this dissertation utilises proactive coping styles with seven dimensions, as defined by Greenglass (2002): (1) proactive coping, (2) reflective coping, (3) strategic planning, (4) preventive coping, (5) instrumental support seeking, (6) emotional support seeking, and (7) avoidance coping (Table 1).9 According to Greenglass (2002), proactive coping styles benefit individuals because they support health and life quality when individuals utilise social resources to achieve goals, meet challenges, support personal growth, and increase control.
In previous research, the dimension of avoidance coping has been understood either as an effective coping method when reflecting “one’s tendency to wait, reflect and see things more clearly before directly dealing with a problem” (Rocha et al., 2014, p. 474), or as a maladaptive coping method if one’s tendency towards avoiding behaviour leads to procrastination (Verešová, 2013). In the MSW project, the dimension of avoidance coping was included and understood as an effective coping method. However, some scholars have decided to exclude it from the proactive coping inventory (see, e.g., Renard & Snelgar, 2013).
9
3.2 Music students’ experienced workload related to interactions