Creating healthy competition between your students

[m1469]

I am thinking about working to create situations that will encourage healthy competition between my students.  I am wondering three main things with regard to this :

1.  Where falls the line between healthy and unhealthy competition (is there any line)?

2.  How does one referee?

3.  What situations could effectively achieve this goal?

Maybe people have thoughts and experiences along these lines that you would be willing to share with my hungry piano-teacher-self?  Good idea?  Bad idea?  Perspectives are good.

m1469

[bernhard]

Competition – as any other manifestation in the universe is neither evil nor good. It is neutral. It is just us that either like or dislike it.

Again, as usually is the situation in the Universe, our liking or disliking of its manifestations has little to do with it actual occurrence.

Competition will happen (like it or not) whenever a resource is in limited supply in relation to its desirability.

I don’t think music by itself leads to competition, although its peripherical activities always do.

If there is limited supply of students, piano teachers will compete either openly or covertly, either knowingly or unknowingly (and sometimes in deep denial).

If there is a limited supply of public, performers again will compete, and try to have an edge over their fellow performers.

However, students of music have little to compete about music itself (unless teachers are in limited supply, or there is not enough printed music to satisfy the market).

What should a student compete about? Who plays best? Who pays in time (hey! there is an idea! )  We know from competitions that this simply does not work because there is no way to specify in a non-subjective manner what “best” means.

It seems to me that although some people do thrive on competing and that could be used as some sort of incentive for this sort of people, it is not an attitude that I personally would care to associate with the teaching/learning of music.

In fact, no one thrives on competing. What people actually thrives on is winning. As someone once said to define sportsmanship: “It doesn’t really matter if you win or loose as long as you win”.

My first reaction (as you may have guessed), is : “bad idea”. 

However, maybe I have not understood your idea (you didn’t give much detail).

Are we talking about the same thing?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ted]

Speaking for myself, competition of any sort turns me off altogether, especially in the arts. However, it seems to be so intrinsically woven into the common psyche and fabric of life these days that once again I'm an outsider looking in. It seems to benefit certain individuals in easily manageable areas but it all too often polarises people toward the extremes of arrogance or discouragement, neither of which states is particularly healthy in the creative sense.

On the other hand, competition is VERY fashionable just now and no doubt the deficiency, if deficiency it is, resides to a great extent with me. In my twenties I played competitive sport and got very good at it physically, but a mental upper limit existed because at heart I really never cared about winning or losing. As far as music is concerned the idea of competition is completely foreign to me. Differences in ability exist regardless, and I enjoy trying to emulate and learn from those better than me and helping those not as capable; I see nothing positive in continually emphasising the differences per se.

So if you make explicit competition a feature of your teaching, be aware that there will exist those pupils, bright or otherwise,  for whom it is a destructive thing, and allow for them accordingly.

[vera]

I have very mixed feelings about competions, and agree with what Bernard says on this matter.
My students have played in competions and I always emphasize, that it is like a fun festival about music, but... the atmosphere in such competitions will decide, if they have a positive experience or not, so that is not entirely under  one's control. I absolutely hate it, if there is a feeling of "bitchiness" among the competitors and their teachers. Sometimes the adjudicator has some influence on how the mood is.  And if there is one, who has a negative impact,(having noticed that at a previous occasion) I will steer clear of such a competition.
Mind you , I would not want to be an adjudicator for any money.
I am nowadays inclined to have my students participate less and less, and have already decided for this year not to be bothered at all.
The positive side could be of course, that they see their peers perform, and they would get a better idea of what is going on outside the limiting circle of my students. ( And I provide plenty of performance opportunities anyway.

[lostinidlewonder]

I get my students to play in a "student concert" that I host at the end of the year. I guess this creates some competition, but the students are more interested in peforming the music they have to do well for the audience, rather than compete to see who plays best.

The different levels of ability is pretty easily seen in my students concert events but the audience are more interested in the presentation of the music, simple or hard. Simple pieces still need disipline and musical ability to be done well, so even the students who are in the lower grades have to peform just as hard as those who are in the higher ones.

But in the end we do it for the music, not to compete against each other. I think there is enough of that in this world, music to me can grow so well without it.

[abell88]

I'd have to agree that I don't really like competitiveness (although there is some in me, I admit), but I wonder if in limited circumstances it could be useful...for example, suppose you have two 10-year old boys,  who are reasonably talented but not crazy about practising. Could you give them the same piece of music to see who can learn it first? Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

[marialice]

Healthy competition between piano students... difficult question you pose there m1469. With other instruments, there is often a healthy competition about who gets to play which part in an orchestra, or who gets the solos. This is a different type of competition than you find in the formal competitions, and healthier if you ask me. But I have no idea how you could create that kind of competition for your piano students (doesn't help much, does it?).

Another idea is to organise a recital series on invitation only. My music school had such a thing and it really was an honour if you were invited to play. Students who like competitiveness would see it as a challenge.

[xvimbi]

m1469, are you really talking about competition, or do you want to create an atmosphere where your students derive motivation from each other? That would be different, although some students might still perceive it as competition, others not. To that end, you could either hold studio recitals, which is quite common, or even something like studio masterclasses in regular intervals. That is already "scary" enough for many students. You could also have your students play together and encourage chamber music in general.

I don't think it would be wise to have your students compete against each other. Rather, there should be an atmosphere where they "compete" against themselves, where they have a stimulus to excel beyond their own current capabilities, not somebody else's.

However, competition and motivation are tightly coupled, and as already mentioned, it's a thin line you will have to walk.

One example of what competition in a group of people can do: I was once in an exam with three of my fellow students. The professor asked one of us a question, which was then answered. The professor then asked another one of us whether the answer was correct or not. Over the course of the exam, we often had the choice between either slamming each other by revealing when an answer was incorrect, or slamming ourselves by pretending we didn't know. Healthy competition? I don't think so, unless you are interested in producing a few very good pianists and you are willing to sacrifice a lot of others along the way.

[m1469]

Well, these responses are so perfect that I have realized I have to think a little more clearly on what exactly it is that I am trying to achieve.  But, xvimbi, I think it is perhaps a great deal along the lines of what you just mentioned.  Trying more to create an atmosphere where my students derive motivation from each other.  This would be helpful to each of my students, as well as for me as the teacher (as I would not always be having to expend every ounce of my own energy to help motivate them) and helpful for my studio in general.

I am not decided about the competition aspect.  After reading both Bernhard's and Ted's posts, I had to start up my thinking engines again.  And after reading everyone else's, I am trying to clarify my thoughts.  There is more to this than I initially thought.  So, I'll be back.

Thanks,

m1469

[m1469]

For some reason I cannot seem to get myself to articulate what I want to say.

So, no, do not encourage competition, but it will happen naturally even though there is not actually a thing to compete about within music itself.  But, yes, create an atmoshphere where students derive motivation from one another.  Set up an atmoshphere where they are competing against themselves.  Otherwise I could maybe produce some very good pianists, but lose a bunch and perhaps ruin a bunch along the way. 

Bernhard writes:

It seems to me that although some people do thrive on competing and that could be used as some sort of incentive for this sort of people, it is not an attitude that I personally would care to associate with the teaching/learning of music.

Why not ?  I assume this viewpoint is shared among those who discourage creating competition between one's students.  But if it pushes some to reach further, why not?  Yes, I know some may become discouraged in the way.  I am only asking because I am becoming acutely aware that I have something to learn here that I really did not suspect hours ago.  What is it about creativity and learning that should not include the quality of competition?

(I am a little surprised I am asking this being that I think my very first thread on the forum was arguing that competitions are not very good for the arts).

m1469

[bernhard]

The problem of competition is that there is only one winner – everyone else is a loser. The winner gets motivated, the losers get discouraged and eventually lose interest. A consistent winner will also be very unpopular.

The way out has been pointed by xvimbi: if you are going to compete at all, do it against yourself. This way you always win.

But then again, what is there in music to compete about? Sports have rules. It is easy (most of the time) to decide who wins, who loses who draws. To have any meaningful competition in music you must devise rules. Do that and you kill creativity. (Martial Arts have gone this way with devastating consequences – making them into sports pretty much destroyed them). Like music, true martial artists can only compete against themselves – a real competition would end up with death. As it is the case in real competition (as opposed to sports competition), of which wars are possibly the most extreme case. Real competition is ugly, no way around it. Fake competition (as in the case of sports) is just despicable in the worst scenario, and sad and pathetic in the best. (I confess to be totally unable to understand thehuge amount of interest generated by such ridiculous activities as football, baseball, and so on and so forth - don;t get me started on cricket!)

You probably can tell that I don’t really care for this sort of thinking, can’t you?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[m1469]

Holy smokes.  I think some things are trying to find rest in me.  I am thinking I have to squelch my own competitive tendencies, or at least redirect.

You probably can tell that I don’t really care for this sort of thinking, can’t you?

yes 

m1469

[dorfmouse]

 Quote:
"But, yes, create an atmoshphere where students derive motivation from one another.  Set up an atmoshphere where they are competing against themselves."

Yes, redirect!

If this is what you want to do then a healthy approach would be to set up situations in which the pupils can talk and learn from each other’s experience. There need be no element of competition at all, rather cooperation and sharing. Surely your aim is to encourage each pupil to actively reflect on his/her own learning and in particular to learn to listen critically to both self and others and find the positive things that can feed back into their own practice.

I’m imagining a Mini Masterclass I think. So instead of always the traditional recital, you could set up small group sessions every now and then where pupils would bring along a piece, not necessarily performance ready (in fact a piece that is known but not “perfected” would probably be better for what I’m thinking, there would be less pressure and more focus on the learning process) Each pupil could say a little about the piece, simple things about why they chose it, like /dislike it, what they think the composer was trying to communicate. Then after playing through, maybe twice if necessary, the others provide feedback. The audience would need to be provided with some sort of structure to know what to look listen for, e.g. a simple checklist …Did x communicate an idea to you? How did you feel when you listened? Does x know the notes? Did x  play in different ways, loud/soft, staccato/legato?  It could be just a very short checklist of things to listen for with smiley emoticon type responses for young children;     , more detailed and sophisticated for the older or more advanced pupil. Positive comments would be encouraged. A critical comment should be accompanied by a practical suggestion for improvement. Maybe an initial way could be that each pupil must give 2 congratulations and 1 suggestion. A young child might respond “I liked the music, it made me feel happy. I liked it because it’s loud. You got muddled up at the end, I would practice that bit more.” An older child might say “You were really brave to play that, it’s so fast and it sounded exciting. I think it would have been even better if you started softer and built it up more” The performer might then say “Well that bit’s really hard, I just can’t get it,” which opens up the conversation for pupils to give ideas that could help and so on. This puts the pupils in the teacher’s role which is very powerful way of learning. The hard bit for you is to steer the discussion without jumping in too much with things you’ve probably said a hundred times!

 Set up in this way the expectation develops is that everyone has strengths and weaknesses, they realise that their problems are in fact common, we can share our knowledge and that giving and taking criticism is just positive feedback. You would be giving a truly educational experience.
 

[Torp]

As Bernhard mentioned, competition happens naturally.  I don't much care for the need to create additional arenas of it.

I'm struggling to write what I'm conceptualizing.  But, what I am thinking has to do with internal versus external rewards.  Piano students often derive motivation for practicing from either receiving the teacher's praise and recognition or from NOT receiving the teacher's admonition.  All of the motivation comes in order to recieve something external to oneself (or not receive the negative).  The closest analogy I can come up with is, "Be good, and I'll give you a cookie."

The opposite of the external reward structure is internal reward.  To follow the analogy above, that would be more like, "Be good for goodness sake."  Our motivation to acheive, to practice, to dedicate ourselves to something should come from the internal feelings or the knowledge we're improving ourselves, and not from the external 'goodies' we're hoping to get.

Our society is basically structured to achieve external rewards.  From the time we are children we are taught this structure.  Schools revolve around competition.  The smartest students get the recognition and rewards.  The most athletic students get them.  Then, there is competition to get into the next school level where we learn that our future employment (itself an external reward) is determined by whether we're better than our classmates.  We finally graduate from school and try to get the highest paying job we can find.  It doesn't really matter if we're internally happy or fulfilled in our job.  The external reward has been ingrained.  We continue to work at our job so we can acquire the appropriate status symbols to show the rest of the world that we are successful.  We work hard to gain the recognition we need in order to continue this cycle.  The competition is endless and often bitter.  There is never enough to go around.  There never can be.  By definition there is only one first place.

How do we develop people who play music not because they play perfectly or because they want to impress a judge, but because they gain such a deep personal sense of gratification or joy from the activity?  Can we do this through competition?  Highly unlikely.  Through recitals?  Perhaps these are better than a competition, but only slightly so if there is no way to correlate the experience internally.

I feel that dialogue with our students is one of the best ways to help develop this inward focus.  Here's a few thoughts along those lines, all of which could be implented in person, in master classes, in recitals, or through all the means that other posters have written about.

"What types of (feelings, ideas, fill in the blank) do you think the composer was trying to convey with this piece?"

This gets people thinking about why a composer might have written something in the first place.  Music is communication.  What is it trying to say.

"How well do you think the composer conveyed that?"
"How did it make you feel?"
"Could you play it differently and convey a different emotion?"

The list of questions and discussion lines you could take is probably endless but the direction is all the same, internalizing the music, internalizing the process, making it part of yourself.

OK, I've deleted the last 10 paragraphs I've written while trying to summarize and make cogent my thoughts so I'll just hit the post button.  It's Monday, what can I say.

Jef

[m1469]

Thank you very much for all of your responses, there are some very valuable suggestions and thoughts here.  You have managed to help me surface and redirect my feelings on this subject.  As with times before, it is actually having a large and unforeseen impact on me in such a way that I am in need of thoughtful digestion regarding your responses.  A large portion of my attitude seems to be shifting quite dramatically.  Thanks again.

m1469

[whynot]

Torp, I think you got it 100% right.  And I would like to have seen those additional ten paragraphs.

A masterclass is okay if it's actually taught by a "master," a teacher the students respect, but if other students are co-teaching, it gets complicated.  I expect to be in a minority on this because peer learning is hot now, but... when the student giving critique knows less than the performer, it's offensive to the performer.  It just IS.  And if the student giving critique knows more than the performer, the performer is self- conscious about that already and on the defensive.  Possibly not, but what are the odds??  On the other hand, the aspects of performance opportunity and learning what we all have in common are good reasons for having class lessons.  I propose that when having group events as a performance venue for the students, peer comments be restricted to COMPLIMENTS ONLY, having the teacher make the specific suggestions.  That way observers can see problem-solving in action, but they don't get put "above" one another.  It could be argued that the intention (for students to critique one another) is not to be competitive, but teacher intention doesn't guarantee how this will actually feel for the students.  If I were doing this (although I wouldn't), in the beginning I would stipulate that every single listener give a compliment to every performer, just to get in the habit of looking for the good first.  Because that's not exactly instinctive, and yet there is always something good happening.  This is not a perfect solution, since it still strengthens the external reward aspect of what we do, but I'd rather get a compliment than a criticism any day.  And you can't get around this by re-naming criticism as constructive feedback and whatnot.  Adults will buy that, but kids won't.  The students should be learning how to truly be happy for someone else's accomplishments and appreciate their artistic viewpoint.