Masteristic Learning, Quality of Life, and Achievement

Abstract

Lee (2025) examined relationships among masteristic learning, quality of life, and masteristic achievement in 440 dance professionals. Significant learning factors varied across choreographers, educators, and dancers, and quality of life played a limited mediating role overall. This review discusses the findings, the English terminology used, and considerations when interpreting subgroup results.

Research background

Previous empirical studies of masterity have all focused on organizational employees. Empowering leadership and masteristic learning studied 617 MZ-generation employees. Learning support environment and masteristic influence included 2,266 employees, and Machine learning prediction models analyzed data from 1,555 wage workers.

This study examines three occupational groups with a background in dance: choreographers, educators, and dancers. The concept of masterity was derived inductively from skilled work outside organizations, including the work of masters at Sewoon Sangga. This study extends empirical masterity research to the arts.

Research methods

The survey was conducted in two rounds from May to November 2024, yielding a final sample of 440 participants with valid responses. Participants reported their occupational group, and the data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

The model specified masteristic learning as the independent variable, quality of life as the mediator, and masteristic achievement as the dependent variable. Masteristic learning comprises the five subfactors identified by Chang et al. (2021): autonomous learning, learning through tools, persistence in learning, open learning networks, and integrative learning.

Masteristic learning reaches masteristic achievement both directly and through quality of life

Research findings

In the full sample, the following subfactors of masteristic learning had significant effects on each outcome variable.

Outcome variable	Significant masteristic learning subfactors
Quality of life	Learning through tools, persistence in learning, open learning networks, integrative learning
Masteristic achievement	All five subfactors (autonomous learning had the largest effect)

Autonomous learning was the only subfactor without a significant effect on quality of life, and it had the largest effect on masteristic achievement.

Quality of life mediated the effects of some factors, although its mediating role was limited.

Analysis by occupational group

The following variables had significant effects on quality of life and masteristic achievement within each occupational group.

Occupational group	Significant for quality of life	Significant for masteristic achievement
Choreographers	—	Learning through tools only
Educators	Persistence in learning	Autonomous learning, open learning networks, quality of life
Dancers	—	Persistence in learning, integrative learning, quality of life

The path from quality of life to masteristic achievement was significant among educators and dancers but did not reach significance among choreographers.

The paper proposed tailoring education to the characteristics of each occupational group and discussed policy implications.

English terminology for masteristic learning

The English abstract of this paper translates masteristic learning as craft-based learning and masteristic achievement as craft achievement. As outlined in the Overview of the concept of masterity, this family of scales has used the English terms masteristic learning and masteristic achievement. The Scale development paper and subsequent empirical studies also used these terms.

The term masterity was coined by Wonseop Chang to distinguish the concept from craftsmanship.

Discussion

Dividing 440 participants into three occupational groups leaves each group with a smaller sample. Interpreting the finding that only learning through tools was significant among choreographers requires considering both the characteristics of the occupational group and its sample size. The masteristic learning scale discussed in the Scale development review was developed with organizational employees in mind. Its applicability depends on whether dancers and organizational employees understand and respond to “open learning networks” or “learning through tools” in the same way. The differing effects of autonomous learning support interpreting quality of life and masteristic achievement as distinct outcome variables.

The study by Ericsson et al. (1993) explained that expert performance develops through sustained, effortful practice designed to improve performance. Studies of musicians and others reported a relationship between the amount of practice and the level of performance and discussed constraints related to motivation and resources. In the meta-analysis by Macnamara et al. (2014), the extent to which deliberate practice explained differences in performance varied across domains, and variance remained unexplained.

The study by Bennett (2009) investigated the work, education, and professional development of musicians and dance artists. Their careers encompass many activities beyond performance. The study reported a gap between curricula and students’ career expectations and the demands of professional practice. Given this range of activities, the self-reported categories of choreographer, educator, and dancer are difficult to treat as mutually exclusive occupational groups.

The study by Seo and Kim (2022) presented a scale comprising four factors in a dance-related sample in Korea: social relationships, health status, excessive training, and dancers’ emotions. These four factors closely reflect the conditions of dance work. Whether they measure the same construct as the mediator in this study remains to be established. The study by Roncaglia (2010) analyzed interviews about ballet dancers’ transition into retirement. It identified patterns of coping through acceptance, disengagement, renegotiation, and reconstruction. The support dancers received also varied with their individual responses. A measure of quality of life taken at a single point in time may not fully reflect these differences across phases of transition.

The review by Vandenberg and Lance (2000) synthesized the literature on levels of measurement invariance and sequential testing procedures. These underpin comparisons of means and structural relationships across groups. Applying the masteristic learning scale to dance professionals and comparing paths across occupational groups depend on establishing measurement invariance through those procedures. Statistical significance within an occupational group and differences in path coefficients between groups are assessed as separate pieces of evidence.

References

이진영. (2025). 장인적 학습, 삶의 질, 장인적 성취 간의 관계 분석: 무용 전공자를 중심으로. 한국무용과학회지, 42(3), 109–130.
Lee, J. (2025). Analyzing the relationships among craft-based learning, quality of life, and craft achievement: Evidence from dance professionals. Official Journal of the Korean Society of Dance Science, 42(3), 109–130.
서재성, 김수경. (2022). 무용 삶의 질 척도 타당화. 코칭능력개발지, 24(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.47684/jcd.2022.03.24.1.23
Seo, J. S., & Kim, S. K. (2022). Validation of the quality of life scale dance. Journal of Coaching Development, 24(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.47684/jcd.2022.03.24.1.23
Bennett, D. (2009). Academy and the real world: Developing realistic notions of career in the performing arts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022209339953
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535810
Roncaglia, I. (2010). Retirement transition in ballet dancers: “Coping within and coping without.” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(2), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.2.1348
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002