Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum What is your merit system? Are we materialistic?

Hi, you make me think of an anecdote. We had some visitors from Australia a few years ago. My daughter was a little baby, not even a toddler yet. My wife breast-fed the baby at the dinner table, and the Aussies were terribly ill at ease, excusing themselves and trying their best to look away, even the lady. Thinking back to that makes me laugh!

Personally, I cannot fathom the teaching of a musical instrument without a great deal of physical contact between the teacher and the student. A great deal of things can only be transmitted through physical contact. It is be a very intimate relationship, and must be founded on a profound trust.

Just like to point out to our Austral lass that Argentina is part of the Western world!

That implies there is no value to music education. But think about it, the number of children desperately begging their parents for piano lessons is smaller than the actual number of children taking lessons. The normal piano student is one whose parent sent him, on the theory it was somehow good for him.

That child will not benefit from an internal reward system for some time, if ever. (just like math or chemistry)

I still think the concept of subtle shaping is underappreciated.

Here you go, AZN,

The (public) middle school that one of my granddaughters attends was faced with a problem. An unexpectedly high percentage of students were scoring "lower than average" on exams, and in their class studies in general. The school tried a few corrective measures over time, and the problem seemed to get worse. They employed technology, fully utilizing our vast communication network to post homework, for all parents to see (and use??) Things continued to decline, and now this "model" school began to come under the scrutiny of the State Education Department (read: the purse strings.) Obviously, drastic action was needed to reverse this trend.

As quickly as I am posting this note, a solution was devised and implemented! In a flash, kids that were not doing well were fine again. Those who were in danger of failing were now passing. Very few still carried around the stigma of failure. Administratively, the percentages were better than they had been in years. The school was “back on top”! And this absolutely brilliant magic wand? The school simply lowered the passing grade from 65% to 55%! Everybody’s happy.

But it does not end with the high schools! A local community ( 2-year ) college had a similar problem with testing. (You guessed it - they are a “public” institution too.) A distressing number of students were failing exams. Professors and instructors were beginning to look bad. The school’s “rating” was constantly slipping. Something had to be done. They are testing a solution (ironic use of the word) - an alternate method of taking, and grading, exams. It works this way: a student takes an exam in the classroom in the usual way. The exam gets graded by the professor in the usual way. If the student does not do as well as s/he would like, s/he may opt to re-take the exam on-line, at her/his leasure, and from the comfort of her/his own home. The on-line exam gets graded, and the student’s final mark for each exam is the BETTER -- not the average, and not the mean, and not a bending curve, the BETTER -- of her/his two grades. Exam grades are going up - everyone is happy.

I have to stop posting now. I have been busy teaching my dog to bark (with rewards!) He has already mastered going to the bathroom, and is showing marked improvement in wagging his tail . . .

Ed

The carrot removes the drive.

Not sure if this is considered "materialistic":
I have an easy button for my students to use.
Sometimes after we complete a not so easy passage, I will ask them if it is easy or difficult. If they answer easy, then I will let them push the easy button then we will laugh together. If they say not easy, then we will not push the button but play through it again.
Of course I won't ask every time, I only ask if I sense the student is struggling but still cooperative to complete the task.
Is this an okay reward or is this considered "bribe"?

On the basis of my experience I'd say they're not typical.

Hi Tim,

I have been back over KeyString's and my posts, several times, and I do not see where either of us dismiss any value of music education. In fact, both of us are avid advocates of competent, capable teachers personally imparting their knowledge and art.

If I have given the wrong impression, I certainly wish to correct the notion, post haste! Where do you see it?

Ed

Ed,
You implied that the only reward that should be used is the intrinsic reward of individually making music, and that use of what some would call bribery to shape behavior is a bad thing. Basically a student should make music because they feel the inner drive, and it shouldn't be corrupted with reward.

However, many of us feel that there is value in sitting through piano lessons, just as there is for math and chemistry, even if forced, even if bribed.

That's on a macro level.

On a micro level the really good teachers shape good behavior (posture, relaxation, tone, attentiveness, attitude, etc.) with their body language and nonverbal communications. This happens although they're unaware of it and maybe not sure how they're getting results; it happens for the precursors of these behaviors as well.

At least I think they do.

The neurolinguistic programming camp believes you can be much more efficient if you're aware and deliberate and communicating in "real time.' At least they did at one time, I'm not sure if they're around anymore. I've changed careers since then.

I am suddenly totally confused. If there is a belief in intrinsic motivation, then this implies that "there is no value to music education"? How does one lead to the other. It's like:
A: We're running out of milk.
B: So rabbits don't have fur?
Poor example, but I'm saying that I don't get the connection.

I then had to look up "neurolinguistic programming". I read two long articles. What I sort of figured out is that they say people's real motives might ride under the surface, and you can tell what their real thoughts are according to the direction they glance with their eyes when asked leading questions. That's probably not what it is, but it's the only thing I managed to understand.

Something has gone quite astray. How does intrinsic motivation make music education have no value? How does neurolinguistic programming fit into this? I'm genuinely lost.

Oh, that won't solve any problem in California. You'll get maybe 1% of the kids happy by doing that. The whopping failure rate won't even feel a dent.

Superb.

If rewards were to be given out by me in a hypothetical teaching environment, they would conform to a study I read recently (http://artiden.com/motivation/#more-4640) that said what you all likely subconsciously (or consciously) already know - if you give somebody rewards (bribery) in an environment like the piano study, then they'll come to be playing for the extrinsic rewards instead of the real reward, as keystring mentioned. However, if you reward students randomly whilst practicing proper, the motivation is not only increased, but can be kept intrinsic. The wonderful psychology of teaching!

tldr; Surprise rewards motivate people more than anything. And expected rewards unmotivate people.

Tim,
All I have to work with is my personal experiences, plus what I see and hear around me. When I was a kid, and I played well, the feeling from that was my reward. When I played not-so-well, that was a big motivator to me. I “hung out” with other musicians, who recognized good playing when they heard it, so that may have been a secondary reinforcement for me.

I have never had youngsters as students, and plead complete ignorance in how to keep the young ones interested and motivated.

Both my children “took piano” for a number of years each. While neither of them still plays, neither one regrets having spent those years “sitting through” lessons. They do not look back on them as a waste of time, or as something they were forced to do. Equally, neither of my kids would say that they received any lasting benefit from those lessons. (Granted, that is a difficult thing to measure.) Each did the lessons for a period of time that felt appropriate for her/him, and then stopped them when the appropriateness disappeared (and much to my disappointment at the time). I can also say with certainty that no amount of stickers or lollypops would have kept my kids sitting through lessons beyond the time when each was done.

Today I have grandchildren. They are congratulated heartily – sometimes profusely! - for doing everyday things that I just take for granted. They are told they are “special” in ways that they are not; told they are very talented in areas where they actually demonstrate very little talent. They are told they are “winners” when they lose the softball game. They are bribed, and cajoled, and rewarded. It seems to me that those around them are keen to promote a false sense of accomplishment. Maybe if enough people say it, the kids will begin to believe it. And once the kids believe it, then they will “act as if . . .”

In spite of it all, these grandchildren actually do excel in areas where they are interested, and at those times WHEN they are interested. Once the interest, the INTERNAL motivation, tapers off, so does the excellent performance.

landorrano I'm with currawong, I've seen many women breastfeed in public in Australia and nobody generally has a problem with it. I guess Australians are close to the English in terms of culture and physical contact. I tend to think that as music teachers there is a degree of personal contact involved in teaching (correcting posture, touching hands, etc) but it's the same sort of physical contact a doctor gives to a patient. And yes, I know Argentina is part of the western world, I don't know how to put it, but I meant teachers in Australia, the US, Canada and the UK - English speaking countries I guess ...

What I find interesting about this thread is it first carried comments about a teacher's personal merit system and also the idea that rewards in the short term are effective ways to reinforce learning.

Minniemay then chimes in with a comment about how the most effective merit system is non-materialistic, students are rewarded with music, with the satisfaction that they can make music. KS backs this up asking why not any merit system, and then a lot of people seem to agree, in an ideal world we don't reward students with stickers, hugs, lollies, whatever you name it - students should love making music.

KS also stated that instilling 'carrots' removes drive and motivation. I agree with this to a degree, I remember having a conversation with an ex-scout, turns out she quit because by the time she hit her teen years she realised that badges meant nothing, they were of no monetary value, the charity work she did for the elderly earned badges... and it was too much work according to her...

Having said that, I think with rewards, you have to remember they are tangible. It might take a little while until a piece really sounds right, in the mean time giving students feedback whether it is in the form of a sticker, hug or praise can be helpful - it shows them that they are on the right track.

I wouldn't want it to stay at that either. I guess everything in life is a balance. The thing I would not want is where someone only follows his inner muse or impulses. There is also choosing involved, and some of that choosing involves things that you may not like to do and that you do not find interesting. I wonder if I can explain this better.

A child might not like spelling, practicing reading, or arithmetic very much. They may not be "interesting". But he also knows that if he wants to be independent like adults, he has to learn to do these things. So he chooses to do them for that reason. This is also motivation. He learns to read so that he can do it later so that he can be independent. He does not practice reading so that he can get a big number or A beside his name, or a pat on the head. I have deliberately used two different words: "learn to read" and "practice reading".

When it goes with following your inner impulse, something dangerous can happen and we see it in music. People begin when they are feeling "inspired". Then they hit a dry patch where the interest isn't there anymore. They think that it's the inspiration that carried them and made them learn, so they are devastated when the magic is gone. At this point you go to the "choosing" kind of "motivation". You keep practicing (or studying) even when you feel nothing and you think nothing is happening. A bit later that dry spell of practising has accumulated to new skills, and that realization brings in still another kind of motivation. Now you know that what was hard becomes easy, and this is sweet!

KeyString,
You do not have to explain it to me - I already understand it. But I would like you to explain it to my grandchildren. God knows, I have tried.
Ed

"Once the interest, the INTERNAL motivation, tapers off, so does the excellent performance."

I look at it differently. When you can do something well, the internal part is fed consistently. It's easy to keep it fed as long as the supply is steady. It's when the meals become farther and fewer that people usually look for something else to feel that feeling. So anyone taking lessons flies through the first book. Eventually though at the 2nd or third book is stops being "easy". The internal reward system goes into shock.

The grind - the "keep working through it" mode has to be taught to most people.

That is why in any undertaking the praise should be on the effort, not the results.

I think so, too.

There was a study we talked about here where they paid kids for school. IIRC, the kids who earned money for As or test scores did no better than the control, but the kids who were paid per book read (for the effort, not the result) did considerably better.

Praise should be honest and specific, else it is ineffective and even resented. I've worked for a couple of bosses recently who gave very general praise "you're hard working and competent and doing great" that could have been read off a hallmark card without meeting us. But his complaints were detailed and specific "that's the third time that report was late and twice you've used the wrong format." One approach is perceived as more genuine than the other!

I am always more interested in first-hand long term experience with students, and am leery of studies and experiments. For example, the results of students being paid per read book being "better" --- what kinds of results meaning what? These things are based on statistics, charts being filled in.

I worked in the school system, and I worked with students one-on-one afterward, and I also applied principles based on that in homeschooling. I did not like what I saw with my grade two's when I first taught some decades ago, and I did not like what I had to undo in the schooled children I helped. I also watched in frustration as a very bright, very motivated young man was DE-motivated and close to despair because of the 'motivating' things that were being implemented in his school.

If anyone advocates this or that approach, I'd be interested in knowing whether they have applied / are applying it in teaching, or if they have just read about it.

So, they ARE winners when they lose the softball game! And all along I thought it was the other way around . . .

The cynical part of me asks, "Were the number of books read self-reported, or did someone actually verify that the work of reading was done?"

Ed