Bribing kids to practice?

[jpahmad]

What do you guys think of this methodology?

https://franklinmusicacademy.com/learning-to-play-piano-vs-playing-piano

[Bob]

Glancing at it, it looks ok.  I can see stickers, etc. but more as a way to check off the pieces. 

If they get pieces they like they're want to practice those.

[keypeg]

The chart to see how they stand in comparison to other kids - dreadful.  I thought that private lessons was the one place where that awful thing doesn't happen.

[jpahmad]

why is it dreadful keypeg?

[jpahmad]

keypeg, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the chart.  It's not a ranking system.  It's more of a progress system.  A 14 year old students is usually higher up on the chart than a 6 year old.  It gives checkpoints for each student to aim for.

[dogperson]

And what happens when you have an 8 year old, for whatever reason, is higher ranked than a 14 year old?  Discouragement and disillusion. 

  If you are going to create a ranking system, why don't you rank students on criteria such as 'best use of practice time in last week',  'most improved',   etc. 

 You could even list names in alpha order and attach a sticker for each day of practice in the previous week.   Think of positive goals that all of the students can reach without a comparison of 'which one is better' in terms of raw skill.

[jpahmad]

And what happens when you have an 8 year old, for whatever reason, is higher ranked than a 14 year old?  Discouragement and disillusion. 

  If you are going to create a ranking system, why don't you rank students on criteria such as 'best use of practice time in last week',  'most improved',   etc. 

 You could even list names in alpha order and attach a sticker for each day of practice in the previous week.   Think of positive goals that all of the students can reach without a comparison of 'which one is better' in terms of raw skill.

I do.  Did you read the article?

[dogperson]

Yes, I read your article - hence my comment.  To rate in order of skills (progress as you put it) is demoralizing.  Your article states you hand out stickers--  why not attach them to the chart, one sticker per day of practice... or one sticker if the student practices at least 6 days during the week. 


So this brings up the topic of surrogate rewards.  I have a little name chart on my studio wall where I arrange all of the kids’ names in order of progress.  This enables them to see where they stand in comparison to all the other kids that I teach.

[jpahmad]

"demoralizing."  Do you have evidence of this?  I don't.  I have never had a "demoralized" student.   For the past 8 years, since I have used it, everyone just enjoys seeing their card move higher and higher.  It's exciting for them.

14 year-olds don't even need the chart or care for it.  I was using that number as an example.  My older students are usually on the "wall of fame" anyway. lol And the younger ones look up to them because they see them perform. 

As for the little ones, usually after one year they don't even remember the chart is there; they're too busy enjoying the music.

[keypeg]

keypeg, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the chart.  It's not a ranking system.  It's more of a progress system.  A 14 year old students is usually higher up on the chart than a 6 year old.  It gives checkpoints for each student to aim for.

I understand the chart quite well.  I have a B. Ed. degree, took postgraduate courses including one that goes deeper into educational psychology, had my observation of such systems when I was teaching in the classroom,(what it had done to my students by the time I got to them - they were only 7 & 8.  Later I taught one-on-one where I could observe my students more closely.  Often I had to deal with effects of these kinds of things being commonly used in the classroom. 
As soon as a chart reflects your achievements and somebody else's achievements, there is comparison, possibly competition, possible feelings of low esteem if you are on the bottom of the chart, or superiority if you're at the top.  The ONE place where you can be introspective, where you can explore a subject for its own sake and have the joy of discovery, gets brought into that same shallow place.  You finally have a chance for personal one-on-one, and then the teacher brings in other students to compare you with, and for strangers to look at, with your name plastered on it?  The idea bothers me.

[keypeg]

"demoralizing."  Do you have evidence of this?  I don't. 

I do. (See previous post of background).  Kids don't tell the teacher how they feel, so you won't know.  If you aren't aware of the effects, you won't recognize it.  I have seen the effects both when teaching in the classroom, and when tutoring.   It is hard to get kids to open up when they have been compared.

[jpahmad]

keypeg.  I've taught in the public school for 10 years (not anymore though).  Let me tell you, kids compare themselves to each other everyday.  What do you think grades are?  They know exactly how they stand in among their peers.  So do kid yourself into thinking that they don't know how they stand just because the teacher doesn't display progress on a chart somewhere.

I think you're making this chart thing out to be more than it really is.  It is an opportunity for kids to gauge how they are doing in terms of progress at the piano.  Like I said, the intermediate students couldn't care less about it.  They know exactly how I'm using it and are thankful that I used different techniques to motivate them when they were younger.  By the way, it's not that hard to find a reason to move someone's name up on the chart.


Public school teachers can not help struggling students.  They cannot give them the TLC that is needed.  This is why the kids are "demoralized."  Not because they compare themselves to others.  It sounds like Alfie Kohn and the progressive movement has gotten to you.  Self-determination theory has been debunked.  See this article:

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

I also commented on SDT myself here:  https://franklinmusicacademy.com/intrinsic-motivation-and-its-misappropriation

I really think you're making a monster out of something that just isn't.  My students love going and moving their name up on the chart.  They do it every week!  Sometimes I get really exited because of their efforts and have them move it up three times at once.  I'm telling you, they eventually don't even remember its their after a while.  It does certainly "light a little fire" under their behinds when I want them to concentrate really hard for some reason, which is primarily why I use it. 

[keypeg]

Your post asked:

What do you guys think of this methodology?

But apparently you don't really want to know what we think of it.  You simply want your own opinion reiterated.  Anyone who has not agreed with your idea, you've argued against.

Fwiw, I have never heard of Alfie Kohn, so he did not "get to me".

Public school teachers can not help struggling students.  They cannot give them the TLC that is needed.

Perhaps you have not met the right teachers.  Of course teachers can - and have.  But it is done through a bit more methodology than "TLC" (good grief).

If you are in fact a trained teacher, then I am surprised at this question.

What do you think grades are?

[jpahmad]

Your post asked:But apparently you don't really want to know what we think of it.  You simply want your own opinion reiterated.  Anyone who has not agreed with your idea, you've argued against.


Fwiw, I have never heard of Alfie Kohn, so he did not "get to me".Perhaps you have not met the right teachers.  Of course teachers can - and have.  But it is done through a bit more methodology than "TLC" (good grief).
  

If you are in fact a trained teacher, then I am surprised at this question.

Someone not on this forum suggested that using these kind of "reward" systems are like using bribes.  I'm was pretty surprised by this mindset so I posted it up on the forum to see what everyone thought.  Apparently, its seems the quite a few agree.  So be it.  However, there is nothing wrong with me stating my case to the contrary.

So where do you get the idea that children are "demoralized" by competition?  That statement is very anti-empirical and flies in the face of the motivation behind most accomplishments in human history.  I keep my students long term.  None of them have become "demoralized."  They all have grown into healthy young adults who enjoy their flowering relationship with music.  



Trained?  No I'm not an animal.  I learn through experience.  The last person I would ever trust is a "trained" teacher lol.  I'm pretty sure that being "trained" is a problem in itself and is probably why we have an education crisis in the first place.

[Bob]

I remember my piano teacher had a chart on the wall when I was around junior high/high school age.  I didn't really like it, but also thought it didn't really matter.  I didn't want my info out there like that, didn't consider it a fair comparison, and didn't want it to influence what I was working on or my goals.  I didn't know any of them, so it really didn't matter.  I was vaguely aware that it kind of implied there was some path that "was correct" though.  But if I had some other pieces I really liked and they weren't on the list, the chart didn't give me credit.  And it also seemed to say that the goal was just to play as many pieces as possible.  Play it well enough to get it crossed off the list, move on to the next piece.

[john21wall]

As a 7 year old i began violin and before a competition, i would say to my mother," If i win this competition, I would like a watch." She would laugh and say, "Of course!" However, what really got me practising was a remark by my uncle Jimmy after i performed a tune for him. He looked at me and said, "You sound very squeaky!" That pierced my ego,and so I worked at listening to my tone and sounded so much better! Everyone learns in different ways!

[keypeg]

Someone not on this forum suggested that using these kind of "reward" systems are like using bribes.  I'm was pretty surprised by this mindset so I posted it up on the forum to see what everyone thought.

Thank you for explaining the context of of your post and the thread that you posted.
I will say that nothing is black and white.  First there is the overall teaching by a teacher, and how he uses any tool.  Even things that I tend to espouse may be used badly by someone else.  What you described in total seems decent, and the effects of that one tool are mitigated and influenced by what you do overall, and the placement you give it.

  However, there is nothing wrong with me stating my case to the contrary.

The thing is, though, that you did not state your case - you asked US what we thought.  And then when those thoughts were not to your liking, you seemed to shoot them down.  Had you begun with stating your own feelings about it, and that you were disturbed by previous statements about "bribing" we may have responded differently. 

So where do you get the idea that children are "demoralized" by competition?  

That was not my statement.  I was responding to your response to someone who used the term, and you said you could not understand how someone would see that - so I responded that I could understand.  It was because of what I have seen, and what I know.

 I keep my students long term.  None of them have become "demoralized."  They all have grown into healthy young adults who enjoy their flowering relationship with music.  

Well that is good.  You obviously teach in a good way to have that happen.
I think the problem is that you saw the comments in previous threads, and related them to your own teaching, and how you use this device.  It is very common for people to relate things to their own experience rather than seeing other possibilities of what others might be doing.  Therefore you would see what everyone has written as being about what you do and how you use that tool, rather than other ways that that thing may present itself.  I have seen this over and over in forums.

Trained?  No I'm not an animal.  I learn through experience.  

We all learn through experience.  "Trained teacher" is an expression and is not meant to be taken literally.  I thought you would understand it as it was intended.  I was also seeing if we have any common background to draw on by asking this.
In my teacher "training" at Teachers College, we were taught by experienced and knowledgeable professors, and then we went on to internships with senior teachers in various schools.  In educational psychology we learned, among other things, about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the types of things you are talking about, the dangers, benefits and purposes of testing, and other things.  In my internships I observed some excellent teachers (and one really bad one).  In the second half of each internship, it was my turn to teach, and received feedback from the master teacher.  That is what my "training" consisted of.  It provided me with some experiences and a grab bag of knowledge which I could then use in the classroom.  I am very much an individual, and soon adopted my own style, things that suited my students.  I also didn't agree with everything I was taught, but had knowledge about them.  At the end I taught one-on-one, and dealt especially with kids who were damaged by the system, who were missing things, and I saw the effects of how they were taught.  All of this formed my views, which I should stress, are not black and white. (I sort of hope that yours aren't either).

[jpahmad]

I remember my piano teacher had a chart on the wall when I was around junior high/high school age.  I didn't really like it, but also thought it didn't really matter.  I didn't want my info out there like that, didn't consider it a fair comparison, and didn't want it to influence what I was working on or my goals.  I didn't know any of them, so it really didn't matter.  I was vaguely aware that it kind of implied there was some path that "was correct" though.  But if I had some other pieces I really liked and they weren't on the list, the chart didn't give me credit.  And it also seemed to say that the goal was just to play as many pieces as possible.  Play it well enough to get it crossed off the list, move on to the next piece.

I don't use any kind of method book or specific "pathway."  Everybody's coursework is different.  They play what they want to play.  Actually, we take turns; they pick a song then I pick a song.  There is no information on the chart other than a name tag that moves up (I never move it down). 

Bob, it's kind of like "belts" in Karate class.  How and why each kid earns their "belt" is completely up to me.  Like I said, half the kids don't even remember the chart and those that do get exited by it. 

[jpahmad]

Thank you for explaining the context of of your post and the thread that you posted.
I will say that nothing is black and white.  First there is the overall teaching by a teacher, and how he uses any tool.  Even things that I tend to espouse may be used badly by someone else.  What you described in total seems decent, and the effects of that one tool are mitigated and influenced by what you do overall, and the placement you give it.The thing is, though, that you did not state your case - you asked US what we thought.  And then when those thoughts were not to your liking, you seemed to shoot them down.  Had you begun with stating your own feelings about it, and that you were disturbed by previous statements about "bribing" we may have responded differently.  That was not my statement.  I was responding to your response to someone who used the term, and you said you could not understand how someone would see that - so I responded that I could understand.  It was because of what I have seen, and what I know.Well that is good.  You obviously teach in a good way to have that happen.
I think the problem is that you saw the comments in previous threads, and related them to your own teaching, and how you use this device.  It is very common for people to relate things to their own experience rather than seeing other possibilities of what others might be doing.  Therefore you would see what everyone has written as being about what you do and how you use that tool, rather than other ways that that thing may present itself.  I have seen this over and over in forums.We all learn through experience.  "Trained teacher" is an expression and is not meant to be taken literally.  I thought you would understand it as it was intended.  I was also seeing if we have any common background to draw on by asking this.
In my teacher "training" at Teachers College, we were taught by experienced and knowledgeable professors, and then we went on to internships with senior teachers in various schools.  In educational psychology we learned, among other things, about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the types of things you are talking about, the dangers, benefits and purposes of testing, and other things.  In my internships I observed some excellent teachers (and one really bad one).  In the second half of each internship, it was my turn to teach, and received feedback from the master teacher.  That is what my "training" consisted of.  It provided me with some experiences and a grab bag of knowledge which I could then use in the classroom.  I am very much an individual, and soon adopted my own style, things that suited my students.  I also didn't agree with everything I was taught, but had knowledge about them.  At the end I taught one-on-one, and dealt especially with kids who were damaged by the system, who were missing things, and I saw the effects of how they were taught.  All of this formed my views, which I should stress, are not black and white. (I sort of hope that yours aren't either).

Thank you for further explaining your position to me.  I should have started with the context first.  Teaching certainly isn't black and white, which is why I only do what works, or, what gets the job done.  If i see a student who is effected in a negative manner by my surrogate reward system then I will pull the plug on it instantly.  That's the joy if teaching individuals and not classes. 

I quit public school teaching in absolute disgust 4 years ago.  I have lots of reasons and stories which I may perhaps blog about but I'm not sure because many of my clients parents work in that same school system.  I'm not saying that all classroom teachers are bad.  Of course not.  Like you said, it's not black and white.  But I've seen the psychological damage of people being labeled as "intrinsically" or "extrinsically" motivated.  I go into this a little bit in the article I referenced above.

[keypeg]

It sounds like we're essentially on the same page.  In regards to your reaction to the school system, I ended up homeschooling both of my children until grades 8 and 11 respectively.  Along the way I explored alternatives, including several visits to a Waldorf school and the philosophies of Rudolf Steiner.  At the end of the day, like you, I applied what suited the student.  At the time that I homeschooled I also changed careers, but still tutored, and that is where I saw damage to students, and the nature of that damage (always within the public school system).
I could not get myself to read through either article that you presented.  As soon as I read about "studies", "psychologists", and theories - one theory supplanting the next theory - my eyes glaze.  People who do studies are scientists who do not interact on a day to day basis with students, and everything is filtered through the lense of their theories.  In one, I read up to where he discusses "intrinsic motivation", but it is a narrow definition by whatever psychological group has the opposite thing to champion as  he does - it's merely an argument between champions of different packages of theory: no thanks.  How about if we just discuss what we see among students, are have experienced ourselves in learning and let the pundits argue among themselves.  I also note in these papers that it involves businesses -- How do we get workers motivated to do what we want them to do?  It's not a world I live in, and that in itself is anti-motivation, and quite a bit, manipulation.  It doesn't (shouldn't) involve education.

I am by nature intrinsically motivated. I have always had a strong drive to learn and to create, especially in the arts, and especially in music.  The music part also has a private component, where I give it my all, and that is shared between me and a trusted teacher.  I would not want my name on a chart with other people's names.  If I asked my now adult children they would probably say the same.  But even with that strong inner motivation, I still reward myself here and there for the onerous parts of learning.  It is peripheral rather than central, though.

What is important is what YOU do, how YOU teach, and how you use everything.  The kids I tutored were scared to say the wrong thing because everything they did was graded and judged.  I struggled to get them to open up, to be curious again, to be fascinated.  That was in the context of the school system.  Had one of your students come to me (had it been a subject that I teach) I probably would not have found this reaction, because of how you use these things. 

[bernadette60614]

I think if kids are shown the value and the beauty of learning something, bribes are necessary.

There's a great book I read when our son was born titled "The Scientist in the Crib".  The gist of the book is that kids are wired to learn, and there is some editorializing that traditional school systems unplug that natural wiring through a continual flow of punishments and rewards.

When I offer our son a reward, he isn't motivated. When I show him how cool something is to learn, you can't stop him from pursuing an activity.

[bronnestam]

I think if kids are shown the value and the beauty of learning something, bribes are necessary.

There's a great book I read when our son was born titled "The Scientist in the Crib".  The gist of the book is that kids are wired to learn, and there is some editorializing that traditional school systems unplug that natural wiring through a continual flow of punishments and rewards.

When I offer our son a reward, he isn't motivated. When I show him how cool something is to learn, you can't stop him from pursuing an activity.

Sorry, but didn't you mean "bribes are NOT necessary" in your first sentence above?

About your other paragraphs, I agree with you completely. I was about to reply to your other thread in Studen'ts Corner about beginner or return adult ... very interesting, but my reply became a whole novel I've better polishing it first ...

Well, but the essence is that there is a fantastic mechanism behind learning that our school system and "traditions" effectively kill. We are all born with this mysterious talent. We all have an inner drive to explore, to grow, to make a change. And as adults we are amazed by the determination and diligence a little child has when it learns to walk, for instance. And other capabilities - here in Piano World we talk and talk about "brain plasticity" and other aspects that should explain why children can learn to play the piano so fast while an adult has to struggle. We even tell each other that it is impossible to become real good at piano playing unless you start at kindergarten age, because when you are 6 your brain undergo certain changes and when you have passed 15 you are literally so stiff in your mind that it is a wonder that anyone can learn anything after that age ...

Sort of. Of course it is highly unscientific baloney.

Our present educational system is not designed with focus on how humans actually work. It was formed in the era of Enlightment and industrialism, where humans and Nature were believed to function just like machines, and the schools therefore were designed just like factories ... with the ultimate goal of producing productive factory workers. Not thinkers, artists or free spirits. 

In a factory it is important to classify the products according to certain criterias. When you work with living material, humans, you call it grades and a convenient way to grade people is to let them do this by themselves by letting them COMPETE. We are so brainwashed in this kind of thinking that we think it is natural - look, we say, the animals are also competing when it comes to reproduction. And so we teach our children, when they are very little, that competing is THE thing. We invent games for them which are like little competitions, and we start when they have just about left the cradle. (And before that mothers desperately compete in being The Best Mother by telling each other about their children's progress, so that those who have "slow beginners" will feel rather awkward.)

Well, now look at a bunch of puppies that play. Wolf puppies, dog puppies, they are just the same, the play just the same and you can see that there is a clear goal behind this playing - to learn how to hunt. The race each other, they combat, they tug things. Looks very much like they are competing too, right? NO, THEY ARE NOT. They train to develop as individuals but also as a team.  They learn social codes in order to build a team and learn how to cooperate, and they challenge each other in order to become as strong, fast and smart as possible. Because they are pack members, and they will always need each other.

We are also pack animals. We also need each other, and therefore we actually feel good when we can support each other, and we are not comfortable with competitions where one is to win and the rest are to lose, or die, or whatever. That is hostility. That is war. (If you don't believe me, tell me why stress feels so uncomfortable. Because it signals "fight", which is equal to war.) Well, we can all enjoy friendly competitions, were we unite in a higher goal - maybe the love of football? Two good football teams will challenge each other and take out the best of their opponents. Within the team, the players need to cooperate and make the best of their individual strengths and weaknesses. And the people in the audience will probably have their favourite team, but most of all they will enjoy a good game. They can be momentarily heartbroken when their team loses the game, but after a while they will cheer up again and say it was a helluva good game anyway.

That is a good competition, because the competition part is inferior to the love of the sport itself. It is designed to unite, not split. But we all know how it often works in reality ... we create a war instead, full of hatred against the opponents. It could get very, very ugly, because so many believe that Winning is all that matters.

So grown up humans are often far more stupid than puppies in this aspect. And more stupid than little children, because children are just like puppies if you don't "raise" them to believe something else.

Schools, factories, puppies and football. Ok, ok, ok, what has this to do with piano students? Well, everything of course. Rewards and progress charts can be a useful tool, and it can also be a disaster, depending on the attitude you put behind it.
Again, the reason small children learn so fast and older children/adults struggle more is that the small ones have not learned the competition thing yet. They still believe that there are other values that are more important and they are right! I learned to walk when I was just nine months old, because I had an older sister. I probably did not want to "win" over her, I wanted to catch up with her so that we could play, because I loved her. (I still do.)  And so I diligently worked on learning the art of walking. I am sure I did not care about praise and rewards from my mother.

When I was five I learned to read. My sister was in school, I was alone, I loved stories and my mother did not always have the time to read for me. I was soo curious about the contents in those books. I remember that Tintin comic album where they talked so much ... and what did they say, really? I wanted to know. So I learned to read, in no time, because I had a clear goal.

When I was six, and still not in school, my sister learned how to play the recorder in lessons after school time. She and her friend used to practice in the evening in our home. I was sitting nearby and I was jealous ... they played their little tunes and learned to read the notes and I couldn't wait to steal the recorder and try it myself because I thought it looked fun, especially when they played together in two voices. Later that year I got my own recorder as a Christmas gift and just a few years later I got a place in the local recorder ensemble, being totally self-taught. 

I don't tell these stories to brag about myself. (And it is not much to brag about either.) I do it because I think it shows the power of learning when you are motivated. And hey, I wasn't interested in being better than Him or Her!

I believe a progress chart (or whatever system you have) could be great in order to help children see their progress in moments when they are a little lost. Now, when I am old and wise    I can note my progress my myself so I would just get offended by such external acknowledgement. But a little child may need it.
BUT if used the wrong way, it is a disaster, as I said. I mean, also competitions and ABRSM exams (we don't have them in my country) could be great tools for learning and encouraging, but only when you see them as tools and not as goals as such. Because the major goal should be your love for piano playing, and ever more to share it with others.

If a student, no matter what age, starts to get sulky and depressed because "someone else is better", then you should watch out. This student is on the wrong track and the teacher must help him/her out. The same with a student who just feels bad because he/she did not succeed with the last assignment. In that case, help them find the joy in piano playing again, and help them to truly appreciate the success of others. I would recommend workshops where they can participate in fun music and jam sessions with peers, even if they are ever so "untalented" or unprepared. And always avoid comparison situations. Any pianist's success is every pianist's success. When they listen to an unusually good pianist or student who plays, don't make them sigh and compare this person to themselves. Make them feel that they are in the same community as the excellent pianist. That we are all worthy members of the Piano Lover Pack.




 

[keypeg]

Bronnestam, excellently written.  A must-read.  A must reread, reread, reread!! 

[bernadette60614]

Thank you.  Yes, you're right...I did mean you don't have to bribe.

I wonder how many adults give up learning an instrument (or learning anything for that matter) because they won't be "the best".

There was a time when households had pianos because there was no other source of music.  Yes, there were a privileged few who could hear Beethoven or Chopin perform live, but the vast majority of people played scores for the pleasure of the pleasure of making music.

I've been taking lessons for about 4 years now.  I recently began focusing on:  How can I take joy in this process?  Not in the outcome, cause the "outcome" comes after weeks and months or work, but on the day to day process.

That, I think, is what has been removed from contemporary life.  Taking joy in the process.