Citation: Guo, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, X.
Relation between Shyness and Music
Academic Engagement: The
Mediation of Achievement Goals—A
Cross-Sectional Survey Study. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20,
824. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph20010824
Academic Editors: Jian-Hong Ye,
Mei-Yen Chen and Yu-Feng Wu
Received: 6 December 2022
Revised: 28 December 2022
Accepted: 29 December 2022
Published: 1 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International  Journal  of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Relation between Shyness and Music Academic Engagement:
The Mediation of Achievement Goals—A Cross-Sectional
Survey Study
Yan Guo 1, Yuehan Zhao 2,* and Xiantong Yang 3,*
1 Department of Music, Taiyuan Normal University, Jinzhong 030619, China
2 Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Trinity Lane, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK
3 Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
* Correspondence: yz694@cam.ac.uk (Y.Z.); xtyang93@foxmail.com (X.Y.)
Abstract: Music discipline that emphasizes expression, performance and collaboration may cause
difficulties for shy students who are prone to anxiety about social interaction, which might cause
low music academic engagement and achievement. According to Models of Personality and Affect
regarding the role of psychological constructs in educational contexts, shyness and academic en-
gagement are the first and third-level variables, respectively. We hypothesized that achievement
goals might be the second-level variable between shyness and academic engagement. Two hypothe-
ses were proposed in the study: (1) shyness is negatively related to music academic engagement;
(2) the music achievement goals mediate shyness and music academic engagement. The research
was conducted in May 2022. A total of 515 college students who major in music were randomly
recruited from a public university in Shanxi province, China. A 20 min self-report questionnaire was
conducted as the data collection method. The research results revealed the following: (1) shyness
was negatively associated with musical academic engagement; (2) the music mastery goals and the
music performance avoidance goals (excluding the performance approach goal) partially mediated
the association between shyness and music academic engagement in music learning. These findings
have implications for the research and practice of music academic engagement of shyness.
Keywords: shyness; music; academic engagement; achievement goals; college students
1. Introduction
Shyness as a personality trait is defined as constraint and anxiety when confronted with
new objects or perceived social evaluations in social situations and is mainly reflected in the
conflict between approach and avoidance that arises for individuals in such situations [1].
Shy individuals desire social contact but are also anxious or fearful of approaching others
and are prone to show fear, anxiety, tension and social withdrawal in social situations [2–4].
School as a social setting for students to learn and live can be stressful for shy students [5].
Hughes and Coplan found that shy students experience social withdrawal in the school
environment, which in turn leads to lower academic engagement [6,7].
Fredricks and Blumenfeld defined Academic engagement as an interaction between
students and the educational environment [8]. Academic engagement in music educational
environment emphasizes collaboration, performance, and responsiveness and is highly
demanding of social interaction [9]. Meanwhile, according to the academic engagement
positively predict academic achievement [10], shy students’ music academic engagement
may influence their music academic achievement. Therefore, due to the characteristics
of music as an expressive discipline, more engagement [11,12] and less shyness [13] is
required for college students majoring in music when they performing on the stage. As
shyness may cause social avoidance, thereby negatively predicting students’ music aca-
demic engagement [6], students with less shyness trait would engage deeper and perform
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010824 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 2 of 15
better [12]. For music education, college students who major in music are involved in a
greater concentration of music education activities compared with other disciplines stu-
dents. So, many more concerns enhancing music engagement and alleviating shyness
should be focused on college students majoring in music. Thus, it is important for music
college students with the personality of shyness to explore the association between shyness
and music academic engagement, as it may predict their music academic engagement
and music academic achievement. Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts proposed a Models
of Personality and Affect regarding the role of psychological constructs in educational
contexts [14], namely, first-level variables—dispositional constructs (e.g., personality traits),
second-level variables—motivational processes, and third-level variables—educational
outcomes (e.g., classroom behavior, etc.), while with the help of the second-level variables,
the first-level variables have an impact on third-level variables. Shyness as a personality
trait belongs to the first-level variable [1]. At the same time shyness has been shown to
be associated with academic engagement [6] and might also be associated with musical
academic engagement. Academic engagement as a part of the educational outcomes is
the third-level variable. According to previous studies, the academic behavior of students
with shy personalities is associated with achievement goals [15]. Meanwhile, achievement
goals could predict students’ academic engagement [16,17]. Following this line of thought,
in the context of music learning, whether achievement goals could be the second-level
variables and mediate the shyness and academic engagement attract the authors’ atten-
tion. By exploring mechanisms that mediate shyness and music academic engagement,
teachers could then provide corresponding support for shy students, thereby improving
the potentially low music academic engagement, and promoting their music academic
achievement. However, in the context of music learning, there is limited research focus on
shyness and music academic engagement. In addition, the integrated model connected the
above variable relation in the participants of college students majoring in music is lacking.
Therefore, based on Models of Personality and Affect, the present study aimed to verify
the association between shyness and music academic engagement and explore whether
achievement goals mediate shyness and music academic engagement.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Shyness and Music Academic Engagement
Academic engagement is defined as the interactive relationship between students
and the educational environment and the state of student motivation for academic ac-
tivities [8]. It is both a shapeable state in the classroom environment and an important
predictor of student academic progress and achievement [18,19]. Academic engagement
is a multidimensional structure with three main components [8], including (1) Cognitive
engagement (intellectual effort to acquire the task); (2) Behavioral engagement (behavior in
the classroom and participation in the school community, which can be further segmented
into effort, attention, persistence, and peer cooperation, etc. (3), and Affective engagement
(perceptions and attitudes towards the learning environment) [20]. Research has found that
academic engagement is not only positively associated with academic achievement [10,21],
but also reduce college dropout rates [22]. In addition, research on academic engagement
helps to understand the quality of students’ learning experiences and helps teachers to de-
termine and provide instructional resources and course content [23] (Coates, 2007). Thus, it
is necessary to exploring the factors that influence the students’ academic engagement [24].
Personality is a predictor of academic engagement that impacts how individuals interpret
their environment and find ways to self-regulate or adapt to different needs [25]. Shyness,
as one of the personality traits, is considered to have a significant negative association with
academic engagement [6]. The following discussion attempts to unpack the reasons for it.
Shyness is defined as constraint and anxiety when confronted with new objects or
perceived social evaluations in social situations and is mainly reflected in the conflict
between approach and avoidance that arises for individuals in such situations [1]. Shy
individuals desire social contact but are also anxious or fearful of approaching others [2]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 3 of 15
and are prone to show fear, anxiety and tension in social situations [3]. School, as the
social context in which students learn and live, is considered to be stressful for shy stu-
dents [5]. Shyness in the school environment leads to social withdrawal, which is directly
related to lower academic engagement and academic achievement [6]. In addition, peer
relationships and interactions, such as peer acceptance and peer rejection, have an impact
on the academic performance and academic engagement of shy students [26]. Furthermore,
lack of positive peer relationships or negative peer experiences can also cause emotional
stress or anxiety for shy students, which can negatively affect their participation in learning
activities, for example, when they are involved in academic activities such as discussions or
group work [27,28]. In addition to social withdrawal and peer interaction, for shy students
themselves, shyness may predict students’ academic engagement. Firstly, shy students
are perceived to have low confidence in their academic abilities, which may reduce their
willingness to demonstrate academic achievement and thus affect their participation in
demonstrative learning activities [29,30]. Secondly, shy children feel wary and anxious
in situations where they believe they will be socially judged [31,32]. In the school setting,
academic assessment that focus on academic performance have the potential to stimu-
late anxiety in shy students [1]. In addition, anxiety levels are predictors of academic
engagement [33]. Thus, the academic assessment in the school may influence academic en-
gagement. Although, Hughes and Coplan’s study evidenced that shyness had a significant
negative association with academic engagement; the study was conducted with Canadian
public-school children aged 9–13 years [6]. However, shyness increases rapidly during
adolescence [34]. Whether the association between shyness and academic engagement in
adolescence is consistent with that in childhood has not been validated. Therefore, this
study attempts to fill this research gap by focusing on college-level adolescents.
When shyness and academic engagement transfer to music education, there is limited
research on the association between the two. However, there are rationales to predict the
relationship between shyness and music academic engagement. In the context of music
learning, music learning emphasizes not only understanding what music is about and
also music ‘within’ [35]. High-quality musical experiences and engagement are thought
to help music learners ‘within the music’, which is vital to music learning [36]. As aca-
demic engagement is defined as an interaction between a student and the educational
environment [8], music academic engagement therefore implies an interaction between
a student and the educational environment of music. Academic engagement in music
educational environment emphasizes collaboration, performance and responsiveness and
is highly demanding of social interaction [9]. Collaboration in music education activities
may cause shy students to avoid social interactions, which may negatively predict students’
music academic engagement [6]. At the same time, musical performance activities in music
education may cause a certain number of negative emotions, such as anxiety, in some of
the shy students who lack confidence or have low self-esteem [37]. Besides, Music Perfor-
mance Anxiety (MPA) is a symptomatology that represents the persistent apprehension
and anxiety that compromises the music performance, whether in the form of solo or group
performances [38]. It has been shown that MPA influence students who study and engage in
music performance [39]. Rodríguez-Mora and Díaz’s research showed a positive correlation
between MPA and neuroticism and a negative correlation with extraversion and concluded
that a personality prone to neuroticism and introversion seems to have an influence on
the MPA [40]. In addition, shyness was predicted by introversion and neuroticism [41].
Hence, shyness might positively influence MPA, which in turn negatively predicts the mu-
sic academic engagement in educational music performance activities [6,33,42]. Therefore,
this study hypothesizes that shyness may negatively predict music academic engagement
(Hypothesis 1).
2.2. Shyness and Achievement Goals
According to the Models of Personality and Affect regarding the role of psychological
constructs in educational contexts [14], including first-level variables—dispositional con-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 4 of 15
structs (e.g., personality traits), second-level variables—motivational processes, third-level
variables—educational outcomes (e.g., classroom behavior, etc.), there is an association
among them, which is that first-level variables influence the third-level variables with the
help of the second-level variables. As we mentioned before, shyness is a type of person-
ality which can be categorized as a first-level variable [1], academic engagement can be
categorized as the third-level variable, while shyness had a significant negative association
with academic engagement [6]. In addition, we found that shyness is defined as constraint
and anxiety when confronted with new objects or perceived social evaluations in social
situations and it is thought to result from approach and avoidance motivations in social
situations [1,7]. The approach–avoidance motivation is an integral part of achievement
motivation, which shows the association between shyness and achievement motivation [43].
Meanwhile, achievement motivation could predict student engagement [44,45]. Follow-
ing this line of thought, whether achievement motivation is the second-level variable
influencing shyness and academic engagement attracted our attention.
Elliot and Church proposed a hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achieve-
ment motivation [46]. Within the model, achievement motivation is categorized into
different achievement goals. Achievement goals are defined as the purpose of task engage-
ment as a way of explaining an individual’s ability-related effort [46], which could influence
individual motivation and individual achievement behavior and is an important compo-
nent of student motivation and self-regulated learning [47]. Different types of achievement
goals unpack the explanations, experiences and actions associated with the individual’s
pursuit of achievement [48]. Initially, achievement goal theory was conceptualized in two
directions, namely performance goals that focus on demonstrating competence and mastery
goals that focus on developing competence and mastery of the task [49]. Furthermore,
there is also a categorization based on mastery—performance and approach–avoidance
distinctions and divides the achievement goals into four orientations, namely mastery-
approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance [50].
The categorizations discussed above both conceptualize achievement goals by a perfor-
mance goal versus mastery goal dichotomy. However, Elliot and Harackiewicz categorized
performance goal orientation into independent approach and avoidance motivational
orientations and three achievement orientations have been proposed, namely mastery
goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals [51]. The reason for
this division is that researchers have experimentally found that only performance goals
grounded in the avoidance of failure, which means that only performance goals have an
approach-avoidance dichotomy, while mastery goals do not have an avoidance dimension,
therefore, mastery-avoidance goals should not as a dimension of achievement goals [51,52].
There is limited research on the relationship between shyness and achievement goals.
However, shyness is subgroups of social withdrawal [53]. Meanwhile, in the school setting,
social withdrawal is the represent feature of punishment sensitivity, which is one of the
basic systems in reinforcement sensitivity theory [54]. Reinforcement sensitivity theory,
which includes reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity, explains the innate tendency
of individuals to be sensitive to rewards or punishments in the environment and respond
to approach or avoidance behaviors [55]. The research has shown that temperamental
sensitivities are associated with achievement goal orientations [56]. Thus, shyness might be
associated with achievement goal orientations. Based on the above discussion, the present
study further unpacks achievement motivation and attempts to explore the predictive
role of shyness on three achievement goals. Mastery goals that focus on developing
competence and mastery of the task, performance-approach goals focus on making positive
judgments about competence, and performance-avoidance goals avoid making negative
judgments about competence [46]. More specifically, mastery goals, which emphasize
self-evaluation of one’s abilities, are mostly self-oriented or task-oriented and contribute to
intrinsic motivation. Shyness was a negative predictor of intrinsic motivation [57]. Thus,
shyness was negatively associated with mastery goals [16]. In addition, shy people are
more likely to have low self-esteem [58]. Meanwhile, students with low self-esteem were
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 5 of 15
thought to have lower perceptions of mastery goals [15], which also validates this result.
Performance goals, which emphasize leaving the judgment of one’s abilities to others, lead
to individuals being more susceptible to extrinsic motivation. Researchers found that shy
individuals are prone worry about self-presentation and the judgments of others [31,34,59].
It follows that shy individuals may be vulnerable to extrinsic motivation. Studies have
identified that shyness was positively associated with performance-approach goals and
performance-avoidance goals [16]. Therefore, shyness is considered to be associated with
achievement goals. However, limited research has been conducted on shy students and
music achievement goals in music learning. Therefore, based on these findings, the present
study made the hypothesis that shyness might associated with achievement goals.
2.3. Achievement Goals and Music Academic Engagement
Different achievement goals students hold in academic settings can make qualita-
tive differences in their cognitive, affective and behavioral processes and outcomes [60].
Achievement goals have been found to predict students’ academic engagement. More
specifically, it has been found that mastery goals positively predict academic engage-
ment and are negatively associated with behaviors such as withdrawal and avoidance
of challenges [17,61]; Performance-approach goals negatively predict academic engage-
ment [61,62]. They are consistently associated with negative behaviors, such as low engage-
ment, higher levels of withdrawal and challenge avoidance [61], and are related to avoidant
help-seeking, and self-handicapping [63]; performance-avoidance goals negatively predict
academic engagement, as they influence students’ self-control strategies, disruptive behav-
iors and task disengagement [64]. Although achievement goals have been shown to be
related to academic engagement, there is a research gap in the association between achieve-
ment goals and music academic engagement in the field of music education. Considering
the above discussion, this study hypothesizes that achievement goals might be associated
with music academic engagement. As discussed above, shyness could predict achievement
goals [16]. In addition, researchers found that achievement goals are considered helpful in
understanding students’ engagement and could predict the achievement engagement [65].
Thus, achievement goals may mediate shyness and academic engagement. However, given
the discussion above, there is a research gap in this area in the field of music education.
Therefore, this study hypothesizes that achievement goals may mediate shyness and music
academic engagement (Hypothesis 2).
2.4. The Current Study
Based on the above discussion, this study proposed the two hypotheses. Previous
research has found that shyness is negatively related to academic engagement [6]. There-
fore, when brought into the music learning context, the first hypothesis of this study is that
shyness is negatively related to music academic engagement. The second hypothesis in the
study comes from two aspects. Firstly, the role of psychological constructs in educational
contexts is framed in the Models of Personality and Affect: (1) the first-level variables are
dispositional constructs (e.g., personality traits); (2) the second-level variables are motiva-
tional processes, and with the help of the second-level variables, the first-level variables
have an impact on (3) educational outcomes such as classroom behavior, etc. [14]. In other
words, personality traits are fundamental to an individual’s classroom behavior [66,67].
Based on the Models of Personality and Affect, this study included shyness as a personality
trait in the first level of variables, engagement in learning as part of educational outcomes
and achievement goals as the second level of motivational variables. Secondly, after the
above discussion of the existing views and studies. The researcher found that shyness was
associated with academic engagement, while achievement goals was associated with both
shyness and academic engagement. Therefore, the second hypothesis of this study expects
to identify the music achievement goals mediate shyness and music academic engagement
(See Figure 1a). The hypothesis model of the relation among music achievement goals,
shyness and music academic engagement is shown below (See Figure 1b).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 6 of 15
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 
 
 
as a personality trait in the first level of variables, engagement in learning as part of edu-
cational outcomes and achievement goals as the second level of motivational variables. 
Secondly, after the above discussion of the existing views and studies. The researcher 
found that shyness was associated with academic engagement, while achievement goals 
was associated with both shyness and academic engagement. Therefore, the second hy-
pothesis of this study expects to identify the music achievement goals mediate shyness 
and music academic engagement (See Figure 1a). The hypothesis model of the relation 
among music achievement goals, shyness and music academic engagement is shown be-
low (See Figure 1b). 
 
(a) 
 
(b) 
Figure 1. (a) The Models of Personality and Affect and hypothesis of the relation among achieve-
ment goals, shyness and music academic engagement. (b) Hypothesis model of the relation among 
achievement goals, shyness and music academic engagement. 
3. Methods 
3.1. Participants 
Because public universities are the main type of higher education in China, we se-
lected college students majored in music as the participants in a public university, which 
means that they can represent the general music college students. We used the cluster 
random sampling method to select these participants from a public university located in 
Shanxi Province as this province represents the middle-income regions of China. The de-
partment of music in this university has about 600 undergraduates, and 515 participants 
finally volunteered to complete the questionnaire. So, in current study, 515 college stu-
Figure 1. (a) The Models of Personality and Affect and hypothesis of the relation among achievement
goals, shyness and music academic engagement. (b) Hypothesis model of the relation among
achievement goals, shyness and music academic engagement.
. t s
. .
se public universities are the main type of hig er education in China, we selected
coll ge students majored in music as the participants in public university, which means
that they can represent the general music college students. We used the cluster random
sampling method to select these participants from a public university located in Shanxi
Province as this province represents the middle-income regions of China. The department
of music in this university has about 600 undergraduates, and 515 participants finally
volunteered to complete the questionnaire. So, in current study, 515 college students
majoring in music were randomly recruited from a public university in Shanxi province,
China in May 2022 through a quantitative survey. The average age of participants was
19.12 with the standard deviation equal to 1.75 (from 15–26 years old). Among them,
198 (38.4%) participants were girls and 317 (61.6%) participants were boys. All participants
reported studying music-related majors.
3.2. Procedures
First, the research procedures and project were approved by the academic ethics
committee of the first author’s school. Second, written informed consent and consent forms
were provided to students participating in the study. For 23 students under 18 years of
age, we obtained their parents’ permission. They were told that their responses to the
questionnaire would be anonymous and confidential, and that the data collected would
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 7 of 15
be used only for academic research. Finally, trained research assistants distributed and
collected questionnaires using wenjuanxing, an online questionnaire publishing platform
(https://www.wjx.cn/, accessed on 10 May 2022). The participants took about 20 min to
complete the self-report questionnaire.
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Shyness
The trait of shyness was measured by a shyness scale which was developed by previous
researchers [68] and has been recently proved to be suitable for the Chinese context [69].
The scale consists of 9 items (e.g., I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority).
Participants were asked to rate how much they agreed or disagreed with each using a
five-point Likert scale (“1 = strongly disagree” and “5 = strongly agree”). After converting
the reverse items, the higher scores showed the higher level of shyness. In the current
study, the results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA, χ2/df = 90.818/23, CFI = 0.973,
TLI = 0.957, RMSEA = 0.076, SRMR = 0.030) indicated the good fit indices, and the Cronbach
α value (0.808) for this scale showed a good internal consistency reliability.
3.3.2. Music Achievement Goals
College students’ music achievement goals were assessed by a Chinese adapted
scale of the achievement goals questionnaire [46] which has been used in a music con-
text [70]. The scale has 16 items with three aspects including mastery goals (e.g., It is
important for me to have a deep and thorough understanding of music theory and music
works), performance approach goals (e.g., It is important for me to master more theoretical
knowledge and better playing skills than others) and performance avoidance goals (e.g.,
I often worry that I will study worse than most students in my class.). All items were
assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely
agree), with higher scores indicating a higher level of trait self-regulation. The CFA re-
sults of mastery goals showed the good structural validity (χ2/df = 8.615/3, CFI = 0.997,
TLI = 0.989, RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.009) and good internal consistency reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.907). Additionally, the dimension of performance approach goals
(χ2/df = 22.623/7, CFI = 0.993, TLI = 0.984, RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.016; Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.914) and performance avoidance goals also showed good structural validity
and good internal consistency reliability (χ2/df = 14.406/5, CFI = 0.992, TLI = 0.985,
RMSEA = 0.060, SRMR = 0.018; Cronbach’s α = 0.875) in the present study.
3.3.3. Music Academic Engagement
The music academic engagement questionnaire adopted from previous research [71,72]
was used to measure college students’ cognitive engagement (“I’ll check my music home-
work to make sure it’s correct”) and behavioral (“In music theory and professional courses,
I stayed focused”) and emotional (“I enjoy the theoretical knowledge and professional
challenges of music”) characteristics, respectively. Participants were asked to rate their
music academic engagement on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). In the current study, the fit index displayed the good structural validity
(χ2/df = 401.385/95, CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.079, SRMR = 0.028). In addition,
the Cronbach’s α of these 30 items was 0.899, indicating the average scores of these items
were used to represent participants’ engagement appropriately.
3.4. Data Analyses
To answer the research question, we mainly used the statistic software of SPSS 26.0 with
PROCESS macro (http://www.afhayes.com, accessed on 21 December 2018) [73] to conduct
the data analyses. First, the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were performed
to acquire the primary descriptive results. Second, linear regression was used to examine
the predictive relation between independent variable and dependent variable. Finally, the
bias-corrected bootstrapping method was used to check the path coefficient and significance
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 8 of 15
of mediating effects. According to Hayes’s suggestion, if the 95% confidence interval does
not contain zero, it indicates a significant predictive effect [73].
The model fit quality was assessed by the following criteria [74]: χ2 likelihood ratio
tests, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Follow-
ing the suggestion of Wen et al., the reasonable cut-off value of the acceptable model fitting
index was as follows: CFI and TLI no less than 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR no more than
0.08 [75].
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary Analyses
Table 1 demonstrates the results of correlations and descriptive analysis for the main
research variables. As expected, shyness was positively correlated with performance
avoidance goals, but was negatively correlated with mastery goals, and music academic
engagement. Additionally, mastery goals were significantly and positively associated
with performance approach goals, performance avoidance goals and music academic
engagement. Performance approach goals were also positively associated with performance
avoidance goals and music academic engagement. The mean value for shyness, mastery
goals, performance approach goals, performance avoidance goals, and music academic
engagement were 3.03, 4.18, 3.92, 3.78 and 3.73. Due to the total score of these variables
are all 5, the average level of shyness among these participants was relatively low but
the average level of mastery goals and performance approach goals was relatively high.
The SD for main variables wave ranged from 0.469 to 0.831. Among them, the SD of
music academic engagement was smallest, while the SD of performance avoidance goals
was largest. These results meant that the degree of dispersion (i.e., between-participants
differences) of music academic engagement was small but the individual differences of
performance avoidance goals was relatively large. The details of age and gender could be
shown in Tables S1 and S2.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations statistics.
Variables M SD Shyness Mastery Goals PerformanceApproach Goals
Performance
Avoidance Goals
Music Academic
Engagement Gender Age
Shyness 3.03 0.647
Mastery goals 4.18 0.648 −0.114 **
Performance approach goals 3.92 0.732 −0.029 0.501 ***
Performance avoidance goals 3.78 0.831 0.130 ** 0.222 *** 0.551 ***
Music academic engagement 3.73 0.469 −0.272 *** 0.594 *** 0.267 *** −0.072
Gender 0.063 −0.126 ** −0.177 *** −0.035 −0.043
Age 19.12 1.749 0.019 −0.009 −0.053 −0.073 −0.117 ** −0.069
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
4.2. Testing for the Hypothetical Model
To verify Hypothesis 1, a direct linear regression model of shyness and music academic
engagement was built. The results showed that shyness trait positively predicted stu-
dents’ music academic engagement even after controlling for the effects of gender and age
(β = −0.197, p < 0.001). So, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Next, to verify Hypothesis 2, the mediation model with music achievement goals as
mediators between shyness and music academic engagement was formulated using the No.
4 Model in PROCESS macro [73]. The results in Table 2 showed that shyness was negatively
associated with mastery goals (β = −0.108, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [−0.196, −0.021]) and music
academic engagement (β = −0.126, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [−0.175, −0.078]), and was positively
associated with performance avoidance goals (β = 0.175, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.063, 0.287]),
but was not significantly associated with performance approach goals (β = −0.019, p > 0.05,
95% CI: [−0.118, 0.079]). Additionally, mastery goals (β = 0.419, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.361,
0.473]) and performance approach goals (β = −0.068, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.011, 0.125]) were
positively associated with music academic engagement; however, performance avoidance
goals were negatively associated with music academic engagement (β = −0.137, p < 0.001,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 9 of 15
95% CI: [−0.182, −0.093]). The path coefficient and adjusted R-square were also displayed
in Figure 2.
Table 2. Mediation model of music achievement goals between shyness and music academic engagement.
Predictors
Mastery Goals Performance Approach Goals Performance Avoidance Goals Music Academic Engagement
β SE 95% CI β SE 95% CI β SE 95% CI β SE 95% CI
Shyness −0.108 ** 0.045 [−0.196,−0.021] −0.019 0.050 [−0.118, 0.079] 0.175 ** 0.057 [0.063, 0.287] −0.126 *** 0.025
[−0.175,
−0.078]
Mastery goals 0.419 *** 0.028 [0.361, 0.473]
Performance
approach goals 0.068 * 0.029 [0.011, 0.125]
Performance
avoidance goals −0.137 *** 0.023
[−0.182,
−0.093]
Gender −0.160 ** 0.058 [−0.275,−0.046]
−0.272
*** 0.066 [−0.401, −0.143] −0.084 0.075 [−0.231, 0.063] 0.041 0.033
[−0.023,
0.105]
Age −0.006 0.016 [−0.038,0.026] 0.028 0.018 [−0.063, 0.008] −0.037 * 0.021 [−0.078, 0.003] −0.032 0.009
[−0.049,
−0.014]
R2 0.027 0.036 0.025 0.449
F 4.805 6.380 6.344 68.856
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16 
 
 
Gender   0.063 −0.126 ** −0.177 *** −0.035 −0.043   
Age 19.12 1.749 0.019 −0.009 −0.053 −0.073 −0.117 ** −0.069  
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. 
4.2. Testing for the Hypothetical Model 
To verify Hypothesis 1, a direct linear regression model of shyness and music aca-
demic engagement was built. The results showed that shyness trait positively predicted 
students’ music academic engagement even after controlling for the effects of gender and 
age (β = −0.197, p < 0.001). So, Hypothesis 1 was supported. 
Next, to verify Hypothesis 2, the mediation model with music achievement goals as 
mediators between shyness and music academic engagement was formulated using the 
No. 4 Model in PROCESS macro [73]. The results in Table 2 showed that shyness was 
negatively associated with mastery goals (β = −0.108, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [−0.196, −0.021]) and 
music academic engagement (β = −0.126, p < 0.001, 95% CI: [−0.175, −0.078]), nd was pos-
itively associated with performance avoidance goals (β = 0.175, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.063, 
0.287 ), but was not significantly associated with performance approach goals (β = −0. 19, 
p > 0.05, 95% CI: [−0.118, 0.079]). Additionally, mastery goals (β = 0.419, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 
[0.361, 0.473]) and performance approach goals (β = −0.068, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.011, 0.125]) 
were positively associated with music academic engagement; however, performance 
avoidance goals were negatively associated with music academic engagement (β = −0.137, 
p < 0.001, 95% CI: [−0.182, −0.093]). The path coefficient and adjusted R-square were also 
displayed in Figure 2. 
 
Figure 2. Mediation model of music achievement goals between shyness and music academic en-
gagement. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. 
Finally, the 95% confidence interval of mastery goals, as a judgment index of medi-
ating effect, ranged from −0.079 to −0.010 (not including zero), and the 95% confidence 
interval of performance avoidance goals ranged from −0.047 to −0.006 (not including zero), 
but the 95% confidence interval of performance approach goals ranged from −0.010 to 
0.007 (including zero). These findings indicated that mastery goals and performance-
avoidance goals (but not performance approach goals) partially mediated the relation be-
tween shyness and music academic engagement, partially supporting Hypothesis 2. 
  
Figure 2. Med ation model of music achievement goals between shyness and music acad mic
engagement. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Finally, the 95 fi l of mastery goals, as a judgment index of mediating
effect, ranged from −0.079 to −0.010 (not i cluding zero), and the 95% confidence interval
of perf rmance avoidance goals ranged from −0.047 to −0.006 (not including zero), but
the 95% confidenc interval of performance approach goals r nged from −0.01 to .007
(including zero). These findings indicated that mastery goals and performance-avoidance
goals (but not performance approach goals) partially mediated the relation between shyness
and music academic engagement, partially supporting Hypothesis 2.
5. Discussions
5.1. Shyness Negatively Predicts Music Academic Engagement
This study aimed to explore the association between shyness and music academic
engagement in music learning context. This study concludes that shyness is negatively
related to musical academic participation. In other words, the shyer the students, the worse
the students’ academic engagement in music learning. Such a conclusion is consistent
with the correlation between shyness and non-musical academic engagement [6,76]. It
also proves that shyness and academic engagement do not change their correlation when
transferred to the context of music learning context. The finding proves the possibility of
speculations that shy students are prone to negative cognition and low self-esteem due to
lack of and fear of social interaction and generate tension, anxiety and avoidance, which
reduce students’ music academic engagement [16]. However, these speculations still need
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 10 of 15
to be further unpacked and evaluated. Furthermore, according to the discussion in the
literature review section, the emphasis on experience, performance, participation, and
collaboration in the music discipline seems to be more likely than in other disciplines to
cause negative emotions in shy students and further impact students’ academic engage-
ment [11–13,37]. This study does not provide sufficient evidence of whether and how the
characteristics of the music discipline impact differently on shy students compared to other
disciplines. Hence, it is also a future research direction for this study.
5.2. The Mediating Role of Achievement Goals
The findings indicate that the music mastery goal and the music performance-avoidance
goals (excluding the performance approach goal) partially mediated the association be-
tween shyness and music academic engagement in music learning. More specifically, firstly,
shyness was negatively related to the music mastery goals and shyness was positively
related to the music performance-avoidance goals, but not significantly related to the music
performance-approach goals. Second, the music mastery goals and the music performance-
approach goals were positively related to music academic engagement, while the music
performance-avoidance goal was negatively related to music academic engagement.
The findings that shyness and music mastery goals are negatively related are consistent
with existing research [16]. Transferring to music learning did not change the relationship
between the two. When students value mastery goals, they are usually able to enjoy the
learning itself and have a higher sense of self-efficacy, so mastery goals usually promote
more active classroom participation [77]. However, for shy students, lack of confidence
and the tendency to have biased negative perceptions make shy students prone to self-
doubt [59]. Thus, they are less likely to make mastery goals their achievement goals [15,16].
This study found that shyness was positively associated with music performance-avoidance
goals, but not significantly associated with music performance-approach goals. Exploring
whether musical disciplines, such as performance, collaboration and other components of
music learning, are related to the changes in the relationship between shyness and music
performance-approach goals is also one of the future directions of this study.
The finding that music mastery goals and music performance-approach goals were
positively related to music academic engagement and that music performance-avoidance
goals were negatively related to music academic engagement are consistent with existing
research [61]. Whether intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, shy students are likely
to adopt music mastery goals and music performance-approach goals in order to avoid
failure in music learning (e.g., performance) and thus engage in more music academic
engagement [37]. Conversely, for shy students, lack of confidence and proneness to negative
perceptions may prompt students to directly choose the music performance-avoidance
goals, resulting in lower music academic engagement [59]. However, these inferences need
to be further examined.
6. Conclusions
This research revealed the following conclusions: (1) shyness is negatively associated
with musical academic engagement; (2) the music mastery goal and the music performance-
avoidance goals (excluding the performance approach goal) partially mediated the associa-
tion between shyness and music academic engagement in music learning. These findings
have implications for the research and practice of music academic engagement of shyness.
There are both theoretical and practical implications for this study. For the theoretical
implications, this study transferred shyness and academic engagement to a music learning
context and found a negative association between shyness and music academic engage-
ment in a music learning context. In the meantime, this study explored the differentiated
mediation role of multi-dimensional music achievement goals in the association of shyness
and music academic engagement. This study fills a gap in the current research on shyness
and academic engagement in music learning contexts. At the same time, as the study was
conducted with Chinese university students, the proposed model also provides a reference
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 11 of 15
for studying the academic engagement of shyness in Chinese contexts. For the practical
implication, this study offers a reference for the implementation of music education in the
Chinese context. For music teachers, the findings of this study may help music teachers
to detect and notice the motivational goal orientations of shy students and provide appro-
priate music learning activities and enhance shy students’ academic engagement in music
learning. Firstly, this study verifies the association between shyness and music academic
engagement. To improve shy students’ music academic engagement, music teachers should
perceive students’ shyness and try to use teaching strategies to relieve students’ shyness.
For example, college music teachers could help ease their students’ shyness and enhance
their academic engagement by encouraging students to pay full attention in music learning
and act with confidence [78], trying not to be judgmental, setting reasonable goals for shy
students, avoiding pushing students and avoiding use the shy label to students [79]. In
addition, studies have shown that shyness was significantly and negatively related to close
teacher–child relationships and significantly and positively associated with dependent
teacher–child relationships. Therefore, music teachers could alleviate students’ shyness by
maintaining a close teacher-student relationship [80]. Meanwhile, a study on shyness and
college students’ physical education found that group counselling can influence multiple
dimensions of student shyness and reduce the degree of shyness. College music teachers
could also apply such an approach to ease the degree of students’ shyness [81,82]. At
the same time, research has shown that there is an association between teachers’ teaching
and students’ academic engagement. For example, there is a significant but moderate
relationship between teachers’ teaching styles and students’ academic engagement [83].
Furthermore, teachers’ instructional design [84], academic support [85], teacher need-
supporting practices (autonomy support, structure, and involvement) [86] and teaching
learning strategies [87] contribute to students’ academic engagement. In addition, research
on academic engagement helps to understand the quality of students’ learning experiences
and helps teachers to determine and provide instructional resources and course content [23].
Despite the lack of relevant studies on music education, the study in the context of English
education has suggested that English as a Foreign Language learners with a high degree of
shyness may keep silent in the course, avoid participating in cooperative tasks, and tend to
use some avoidance strategies in the face of pressure. Language teachers should adopt var-
ious skills and appropriate tasks to help these students overcome their negative emotional
characteristics and promote students’ academic participation [88]. Hence, based on the
findings of this study, in order to promote shy students’ music academic engagement, the
teachers should not only relieve the degree of shyness for students but also use the teaching
strategy or guiding shy students to use mastery goals and performances-approach goals
and avoid use performance-avoidance goals. Research has shown that a master-oriented
classroom environment which is characterized by providing students with motivating tasks,
and autonomy support could encourage students to adopt a mastery goal orientation [89].
In addition, teachers could set concrete performance goals for their students based on
their ability levels and guide them to plan appropriate strategies to encourage them to
use performance approach goals orientation and achieve the goals [90]. Besides, teachers
should be vigilant and avoid shy students using performance-approach goals, including
the use of self-handicapping strategies, avoidance of novelty and challenges, and reluctance
to cooperate with peers [91].
Although this study has some theoretical and practical implications, it also has limi-
tations. Firstly, the data for this study were derived from a self-report method. Although
the self-report method is considered a classic research paradigm in the field of personality
and motivation research [92], there are differences in subjects’ introspective abilities. In the
future, more experimental task paradigms would be applied to avoid subjective bias caused
by differences in subjects’ introspective abilities; secondly, the sample for this study was
collected from one university in China, and the sample size may limit the generalization of
the study findings. Future research may consider expanding the subject population of the
study to enhance the external validity of the study and the generalizability of the findings;
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 12 of 15
finally, the framework of cognitive, behavioral and affective was used to examine learning
engagement in this paper. Other researchers have studied academic engagement from the
framework of vigor, dedication and absorption [93]. For this study, whether the current
relations of variables are valid under this theoretical framework (i.e., vigor, dedication and
absorption) is a promising direction for future research.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph20010824/s1, Table S1: The descriptive statistics of age;
Table S2: The descriptive statistics of gender.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.G.; methodology, Y.Z. and X.Y.; software, Y.Z. and
X.Y.; validation, Y.Z., X.Y. and Y.G.; formal analysis, Y.G.; investigation, Y.G.; resources, Y.G.; data
curation, Y.G.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z. and X.Y.;
visualization, Y.G.; supervision, Y.Z. and X.Y.; project administration, Y.G., Y.Z. and X.Y. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Taiyuan Normal University (protocol
code 202202240017 and date of approval: 20220224).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments: Thanks for the support of the participating schools’ students and teachers.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Coplan, R.J.; Armer, M. A “Multitude” of Solitude: A Closer Look at Social Withdrawal and Nonsocial Play in Early Childhood.
Child Dev. Perspect. 2007, 1, 26–32. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, X. Culture and Shyness in Childhood and Adolescence. New Ideas Psychol. 2019, 53, 58–66. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, Y.M.; Li, Y.L.; Xiao, S.; Gao, Y.J.; Deng, Q.Y.; Gao, F.Q. Shyness and School Adjustment of High School Students: A
Moderated Mediation Model. Psychol. Explor. 2019, 39, 527–532.
4. Rubin, K.H.; Coplan, R.J.; Bowker, J.C. Social Withdrawal in Childhood. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009, 60, 141–171. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Coplan, R.J.; Arbeau, K.A. The Stresses of a “Brave New World”: Shyness and School Adjustment in Kindergarten. J. Res. Child.
Educ. 2008, 22, 377–389. [CrossRef]
6. Hughes, K.; Coplan, R.J. Exploring Processes Linking Shyness and Academic Achievement in Childhood. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2010,
25, 213. [CrossRef]
7. Eggum-Wilkens, N.D.; Zhang, L.; An, D.; Clifford, B.N. Shyness in School; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
8. Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Rev. Educ. Res.
2004, 74, 59–109. [CrossRef]
9. Cangro, R. Student Collaboration and Standards-Based Music Learning: A Literature Review. Updat. Appl. Res. Music Educ. 2016,
34, 63–68. [CrossRef]
10. Carmona-Halty, M.; Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Schaufeli, W.B. Linking Positive Emotions and Academic Performance: The
Mediated Role of Academic Psychological Capital and Academic Engagement. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 2938–2947. [CrossRef]
11. Chen, J.C.W.; O’Neill, S.A. Computer-Mediated Composition Pedagogy: Students’ Engagement and Learning in Popular Music
and Classical Music. Music Educ. Res. 2020, 22, 185–200. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, A. Models of Student Engagement in Music Education Classroom in Higher Education. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 1–4.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Oguz-Duran, N.; Demirbatir, R.E. The Mediating Role of Shyness on the Relationship between Academic Satisfaction and
Flourishing among Pre-Service Music Teachers. Int. Educ. Stud. 2020, 13, 163–169. [CrossRef]
14. Matthews, G.; Zeidner, M.; Roberts, R.D. Models of Personality and Affect for Education: A Review and Synthesis. In Handbook of
Educational Psychology; Alexander, P.A., Winne, P.H., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 163–186.
15. Fallah, N. Willingness to Communicate in English, Communication Self-Confidence, Motivation, Shyness and Teacher Immediacy
among Iranian English-Major Undergraduates: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2014, 30,
140–147. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 13 of 15
16. Chen, Y.; Li, L.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Gao, F. Shyness and Learning Adjustment in Senior High School Students: Mediating Roles of
Goal Orientation and Academic Help Seeking. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Miller, A.L.; Fassett, K.T.; Palmer, D.L. Achievement Goal Orientation: A Predictor of Student Engagement in Higher Education.
Motiv. Emot. 2021, 45, 327–344. [CrossRef]
18. Appleton, J.J.; Christenson, S.L.; Furlong, M.J. Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues
of the Construct. Psychol. Sch. 2008, 45, 369–386. [CrossRef]
19. Reeve, J. A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement. Handb. Res. student Engagem. 2012, 7, 149–172.
[CrossRef]
20. Skinner, E.A.; Belmont, M.J. Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement across
the School Year. J. Educ. Psychol. 1993, 85, 571–581. [CrossRef]
21. Pike, G.R.; Kuh, G.D.; Massa-McKinley, R.C. First-Year Students’ Employment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement:
Untangling the Relationship between Work and Grades. NASPA J. 2008, 45, 560–582. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, Y.; Guan, X.; Ahmed, M.Z.; Jobe, M.C.; Ahmed, O. The Association between University Students’ Achievement Goal
Orientation and Academic Engagement: Examining the Mediating Role of Perceived School Climate and Academic Self-Efficacy.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 6304. [CrossRef]
23. Coates, H. A Model of Online and General Campus-based Student Engagement. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2007, 32, 121–141.
[CrossRef]
24. Ouweneel, E.; Le Blanc, P.M.; Schaufeli, W.B. Flourishing Students: A Longitudinal Study on Positive Emotions, Personal
Resources, and Study Engagement. J. Posit. Psychol. 2011, 6, 142–153. [CrossRef]
25. Zecca, G.; Györkös, C.; Becker, J.; Massoudi, K.; de Bruin, G.P.; Rossier, J. Validation of the French Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale and Its Relationship with Personality Traits and Impulsivity. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 65, 19–28. [CrossRef]
26. Ladd, G.W. Peer Relationships and Social Competence during Early and Middle Childhood. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1999, 50, 333–359.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Eggum-Wilkens, N.D.; Valiente, C.; Swanson, J.; Lemery-Chalfant, K. Children’s Shyness, Popularity, School Liking, Cooperative
Participation, and Internalizing Problems in the Early School Years. Early Child. Res. Q. 2014, 29, 85–94. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, L.; Eggum-Wilkens, N.D.; Eisenberg, N.; Spinrad, T.L. Children’s Shyness, Peer Acceptance, and Academic Achievement
in the Early School Years. Merrill. Palmer. Q. 2017, 63, 458–484. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, X.; Zappulla, C.; Lo Coco, A.; Schneider, B.; Kaspar, V.; De Oliveira, A.M.; He, Y.; Li, D.; Li, B.; Bergeron, N. Self-Perceptions
of Competence in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian Children: Relations with Social and School Adjustment. Int. J. Behav.
Dev. 2004, 28, 129–138. [CrossRef]
30. Oflaz, A. The Effects of Anxiety, Shyness and Language Learning Strategies on Speaking Skills and Academic Achievement. Eur.
J. Educ. Res. 2019, 8, 999–1011. [CrossRef]
31. Coplan, R.J.; Prakash, K.; O’Neil, K.; Armer, M. Do You" Want" to Play? Distinguishing between Conflicted Shyness and Social
Disinterest in Early Childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2004, 40, 244. [CrossRef]
32. DiAngelo, R.; Sensoy, Ö. “Yeah, but I’m Shy!”: Classroom Participation as a Social Justice Issue. Multicult. Learn. Teach. 2019, 14.
[CrossRef]
33. Wilcox, G.; McQuay, J.; Blackstaffe, A.; Perry, R.; Hawe, P. Twenty Percent of the Variance Between Students in Academic
Engagement Is Explained by Grade Level, Gender, Family Affluence, Anxiety, and Social Support. In Proceedings of the School
Psychology Forum, Bethesda, MD, USA; 2016; Volume 10, pp. 397–409.
34. Bayram Özdemir, S.; Cheah, C.S.L.; Coplan, R.J. Processes and Conditions Underlying the Link between Shyness and School
Adjustment among Turkish Children. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2017, 35, 218–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Reimer, B. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision; State University of New York Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022;
ISBN 1438489331.
36. Webster, P.R. Construction of Music Learning. MENC Handb. Res. Music Learn. 2011, 1, 35–83. [CrossRef]
37. Martin, A.J. Motivation and Engagement in Music and Sport: Testing a Multidimensional Framework in Diverse Performance
Settings. J. Pers. 2008, 76, 135–170. [CrossRef]
38. Wiedemann, A.; Vogel, D.; Voss, C.; Hoyer, J. How Does Music Performance Anxiety Relate to Other Anxiety Disorders? Psychol.
Music 2022, 50, 204–217. [CrossRef]
39. Martin-Gagnon, G.; Creech, A. Cool Jazz: Music Performance Anxiety in Jazz Performance Students. Music Educ. Res. 2019, 21,
414–425. [CrossRef]
40. Rodríguez-Mora, Á.; Díaz, R.L. Rasgos de Personalidad y Variables Asociadas a La Ansiedad Escénica Musical. Ansiedad Estrés
2020, 26, 33–38. [CrossRef]
41. Ebeling-Witte, S.; Frank, M.L.; Lester, D. Shyness, Internet Use, and Personality. CyberPsychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 713–716. [CrossRef]
42. Kenny, D. The Psychology of Music Performance Anxiety; University of Oxford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011;
ISBN 978–0–19–958614–1.
43. Elliot, A.J.; Thrash, T.M. Achievement Goals and the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 13,
139–156. [CrossRef]
44. Boutakidis, I.; Rodriguez, J.L. Academic Motivation and Engagement across Three Generations of Latino/a Junior High School
Students. J. Latinos Educ. 2019, 21, 1–14. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 14 of 15
45. Smogorzewska, J.; Szumski, G.; Bosacki, S.; Grygiel, P.; Karwowski, M. School Engagement, Sensitivity to Criticism and Academic
Achievement in Children: The Predictive Role of Theory of Mind. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2022, 93, 102111. [CrossRef]
46. Elliot, A.J.; Church, M.A. A Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Achievement Motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1997,
72, 218. [CrossRef]
47. Boekaerts, M.; Niemivirta, M. Self-Regulated Learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000;
pp. 417–450.
48. Dweck, C.S. Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 1040. [CrossRef]
49. Ames, C. Achievement Goals and the Classroom Motivational Climate. Stud. Percept. Classr. 1992, 1, 327–348.
50. Elliot, A.J.; Murayama, K. On the Measurement of Achievement Goals: Critique, Illustration, and Application. J. Educ. Psychol.
2008, 100, 613. [CrossRef]
51. Elliot, A.J.; Harackiewicz, J.M. Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 461. [CrossRef]
52. Elliot, A.J. Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement Goals. Educ. Psychol. 1999, 34, 169–189. [CrossRef]
53. Xu, J.; Sun, R.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Yiu, W.Y.V.; Zhou, N.; Wang, Y.; Luo, S.; Shen, J.; Liu, L. Subtypes of Social Withdrawal and Mental
Health Trajectories during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Res. Pers. 2022, 97, 104203. [CrossRef]
54. Fielden, C.; Kim, L.E.; MacCann, C. Extraversion. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 623–627.
55. Rothbart, M.K.; Hwang, J. Temperament and the Development of Competence and Motivation. Handb. Competence Motiv. 2005,
10, 167–184.
56. Rawlings, A.M.; Tapola, A.; Niemivirta, M. Longitudinal Predictions between Temperamental Sensitivities and Achievement
Goal Orientations in the Early School Years. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2020, 35, 451–475. [CrossRef]
57. Monacis, L.; Mansueto, G.; Sinatra, M.; Traetta, L.; de Palo, V. Shyness in Academic Contexts. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 69,
1182–1190. [CrossRef]
58. Li, L.; Han, L.; Gao, F.Q.; Chen, Y.M. The Role of Negative Cognitive Processing Bias in the Relation between Shyness and
Self-Disclosure among College Students. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2021, 29, 1260–1265. [CrossRef]
59. Li, L.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Z. Shyness and Self-Disclosure among College Students: The Mediating Role of Psychological Security and
Its Gender Difference. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 6003–6013. [CrossRef]
60. Meece, J.L.; Anderman, E.M.; Anderman, L.H. Classroom Goal Structure, Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement. Annu.
Rev. Psychol. 2006, 57, 487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Wang, C.; Shim, S.S.; Wolters, C.A. Achievement Goals, Motivational Self-Talk, and Academic Engagement among Chinese
Students. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2017, 18, 295–307. [CrossRef]
62. Cho, M.-H.; Cho, Y. Instructor Scaffolding for Interaction and Students’ Academic Engagement in Online Learning: Mediating
Role of Perceived Online Class Goal Structures. Internet High. Educ. 2014, 21, 25–30. [CrossRef]
63. Moller, A.C.; Elliot, A.J. The 2 × 2 Achievement Goal Framework: An Overview of Empirical Research. In Focus on Educational
Psychology; Mittel, A.V., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 307–326.
64. Elliot, A.J. A Conceptual History of the Achievement Goal Construct. In Handbook of Competence and Motivation; The Guilford
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 52–72.
65. Goagoses, N.; Itenge, H.; Winschiers-Theophilus, H.; Koglin, U. The Influence of Social Achievement Goals on Academic
Engagement: A Cross-Sectional Survey in a Namibian Primary School. S. Afr. J. Psychol. 2021, 51, 356–368. [CrossRef]
66. Hart, D.; Burock, D.; London, B.; Atkins, R.; Bonilla-Santiago, G. The Relation of Personality Types to Physiological, Behavioural,
and Cognitive Processes. Eur. J. Personal. Publ. Eur. Assoc. Personal. Psychol. 2005, 19, 391–407. [CrossRef]
67. Halder, S.; Roy, A.; Chakraborty, P.K. The Influence of Personality Traits on Information Seeking Behaviour of Students. Malays. J.
Libr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 15, 41–53.
68. Cheek, J.M.; Buss, A.H. Shyness and Sociability. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 330. [CrossRef]
69. Li, X.; Li, W.; Liu, M.; Xiao, W.; Zhou, H. How Does Shyness Affect Chinese College Students’ Tendency to Mobile Phone
Addiction? Testing the Mediating Roles of Social Anxiety and Self-Control. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 1–8. [CrossRef]
70. Mentis¸ Köksoy, A.; Aydıner Uygun, M. Examining the Achievement Goal Orientation Levels of Turkish Pre-Service Music
Teachers. Int. J. Music Educ. 2018, 36, 313–333. [CrossRef]
71. Liu, L.; Bond, M.H.; Guan, Y.; Cai, Z.; Sun, J.; Yu, Q.; Fu, R.; Wang, Z. Parents’ Music Training Motivation and Children’s Music
Learning Achievement: An Investigation in the Chinese Context. Psychol. Music 2015, 43, 661–674. [CrossRef]
72. Wang, M.-T.; Fredricks, J.A.; Ye, F.; Hofkens, T.L.; Linn, J.S. The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale Development,
Validation, and Psychometric Properties. Learn. Instr. 2016, 43, 16–26. [CrossRef]
73. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 146253466X.
74. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New
Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [CrossRef]
75. Wen, Z.; Hau, K.-T.; Herbert, W.M. Structural Equation Model Testing: Cutoff Criteria for Goodness of Fit Indices and Chi-Square
Test. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2004, 36, 186–194.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 824 15 of 15
76. Masek, A.; Masduki, M. Participation of Shy Children during the Teaching and Learning of Basic Psychomotor Skill. Pertanika J.
Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2017, 25, 55–66.
77. Iaconelli, R.; Anderman, E.M. Classroom Goal Structures and Communication Style: The Role of Teacher Immediacy and
Relevance-Making in Students’ Perceptions of the Classroom. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 24, 37–58. [CrossRef]
78. Tarrant, G. How to Overcome Shyness—Steps to Achieve It. Available online: https://psychotreat.com/how-to-overcome-
shyness/ (accessed on 1 August 2022).
79. Hanlon, R.R. Helping Your Child Conquer Shyness. Available online: https://www.cancercarewny.com/content.aspx?chunkiid=
14359 (accessed on 1 August 2022).
80. Arbeau, K.A.; Coplan, R.J.; Weeks, M. Shyness, Teacher-Child Relationships, and Socio-Emotional Adjustment in Grade 1. Int. J.
Behav. Dev. 2010, 34, 259–269. [CrossRef]
81. Wen, X.; Wen, S. Experimental Researchon Sports Theme Group Counseling Integrating P.E——On a Mode Expending of Theme
Group Psychological Counseling Incorporating Into PE Teaching in Colleges and Universities. J. Southwest China Norm. Univ.
2015, 40, 145–149. [CrossRef]
82. Eryılmaz, A.; Altinsoy, F. An Integrative Intervention Group Counseling Program for Adolescents’ Shyness: Combining Positive
and Pathological Interventions (Dual-Factor Model). Egit. VE Bilim. Sci. 2021, 46, 441–458. [CrossRef]
83. Shaari, A.S.; Yusoff, N.M.; Ghazali, I.M.; Osman, R.H.; Dzahir, N.F.M. The Relationship between Lecturers’ Teaching Style and
Students’ Academic Engagement. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 118, 10–20. [CrossRef]
84. Gettinger, M.; Walter, M.J. Classroom Strategies to Enhance Academic Engaged Time. In Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement; Christenson, S., Reschly, A., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 653–673.
85. Robayo-Tamayo, M.; Blanco-Donoso, L.M.; Roman, F.J.; Carmona-Cobo, I.; Moreno-Jimenez, B.; Garrosa, E. Academic Engage-
ment: A Diary Study on the Mediating Role of Academic Support. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2020, 80, 1–12. [CrossRef]
86. Olivier, E.; Galand, B.; Morin, A.J.S.; Hospel, V. Need-Supportive Teaching and Student Engagement in the Classroom: Comparing
the Additive, Synergistic, and Global Contributions. Learn. Instr. 2021, 71, 1–18. [CrossRef]
87. Inda-Caro, M.; Maulana, R.; Fernández-García, C.-M.; Peña-Calvo, J.-V.; Rodríguez-Menéndez, M.; Helms-Lorenz, M. Validating
a Model of Effective Teaching Behaviour and Student Engagement: Perspectives from Spanish Students. Learn. Environ. Res. 2019,
22, 229–251. [CrossRef]
88. Tian, T. A Review of the Impact of EFL Teachers’ Affectivity and Surgency and Learners’ Shyness on Their Language Attainment.
Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1–10. [CrossRef]
89. Ames, C.; Archer, J. Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students’ Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes. J. Educ.
Psychol. 1988, 80, 260–267. [CrossRef]
90. Lau, K.; Lee, J. Examining Hong Kong Students’ Achievement Goals and Their Relations with Students’ Perceived Classroom
Environment and Strategy Use. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 357–372. [CrossRef]
91. Midgley, C.; Kaplan, A.; Middleton, M. Performance-Approach Goals: Good for What, for Whom, under What Circumstances,
and at What Cost? J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 93, 77. [CrossRef]
92. Wigfield, A.; Koenka, A.C. Where Do We Go from Here in Academic Motivation Theory and Research? Some Reflections and
Recommendations for Future Work. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 1–9. [CrossRef]
93. Schaufeli, W.B.; Salanova, M.; González-Romá, V.; Bakker, A.B. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. J. Happiness Stud. 2002, 3, 71–92. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.