 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-11-23 03:22
This thread comes out some other conversation in which we discussed some issues relative to a specific student that none of us know. Now I'd like to ask teachers here about their views on positive vs. negative reinforcement. A couple questions seem obvious:
1. How do we define positive vs. negative reinforcement? I generally think of positive as anything that's not actually negative. (i.e. could be neutral) Negative, to me, is something that is less than neutral.
2. In what areas of teaching are we talking about? I see three different areas for teaching issues: Process, faith and character. Process is the learning process itself. Faith issues are those in which the student is being exhorted to cut loose and trust his/her training to get through the task at hand. To me, this is the most likely area for student emotions to get sensitive. Finally there are character issues, such as work ethic, respect, reliability of attendance, give adequate notice of absences, etc. I felt like the "Brahms" thread dealt with a process or a faith issue.
3. I'm particularly interested in the application of negative reinforcement. I am a very positive teacher in matters or process and faith. Possibly past the point of diminishing returns. And this is one point I worry about. Can things get so 'Mr. Rogers' that we get stuck in a feedback loop?
However, I do give negative reinforcement if I feel that issues of character or respect are not up to snuff. In fact, I try to set up my studio so that it is difficult for many breaches of character or respect to occur at all.
Generally, I feel that I am pretty successful as a teacher, but even some of my best students lack something that may have been instilled in me by either negative comments or a negative experience in my learning process. I will share some of these experiences here for you to evalute, and hopefully some others will come forward as well.
Another question. One thing that I consider a matter of positive reinforcement is to offer a glimpse of what a students possibilities might be. When I give a student of mix CD of various clarinet players and styles, am I tainting its contents by the fact that I have handed it to the student--and the student will now not get to discover this player or style on his/her own?
That should give us a couple of talking points.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2004-11-23 15:07
allencole wrote:
> >
> 3. I'm particularly interested in the application of negative
> reinforcement. I am a very positive teacher in matters or
> process and faith. Possibly past the point of diminishing
> returns. And this is one point I worry about. Can things get so
> 'Mr. Rogers' that we get stuck in a feedback loop?
Allen, I like to consider the difference between negative reinforcement and contstructive feedback. Most of the time when I give feedback in what you call process and faith areas, it is starts with something like "You might try..." or "I would like to hear more/less..." Most things don't have to be phrased negatively, and that isn't being "Mr. Rogers", it's good teaching. That being said, I will admit that I am generally easier on my students than I probably should be.
>
> However, I do give negative reinforcement if I feel that issues
> of character or respect are not up to snuff.
Yup,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-11-23 22:25
Allen,
I studied this ~30 years ago so I may be able to help with some of your questions....
Positive reinforcement is a technique used in operant conditioning (see B.F. Skinner for more on this). It involves increasing the probability of a behaviour being repeated by providing a reward.
Some principles of reinforcement: the shorter the interval between behaviour and reinforcement, the stronger the reinforcing effect. The reinforcing effect will wear off and rewarded behaviour will stop some time after reinforcements are stopped; however, this "extinction" can be delayed by using variable ratio (randomly reward the behaviour, instead of each time) or variable interval (vary the time between reinforcements). Example: wife gives you a new clarinet after you take out the garbage, but only every so often so that you don't know which act will get rewarded.
Negative reinforcement rewards the subject by withdrawal of the negative reinforcer when the subject performs the desired behaviour; e.g., wife stops nagging after you take out the garbage.
Your description of negative reinforcement seems like it falls between negative reinforcement and punishment, but I'm not sure.
To "offer a glimpse of what a student's possibilities might be" seems more to me like an application of Vroom's Expectancy Theory of motivation. It involves expressing motivation as the product of three factors. Naturally, if any factor is zero the product will be zero; i.e., no motivation results. The three factors are: 1) the sum of the valences of the outcomes, or the satisfactions from task accomplishment minus any negative consequences ; 2) the instrumentality of the effort, or probability that a desired outcome will result; and 3) Expectancy, which is the individual's subjective estimate of whether a specific level of effort will result in task accomplishment.
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2004-11-23 23:40
hans wrote:
Negative reinforcement rewards the subject by withdrawal of the
> negative reinforcer when the subject performs the desired
> behaviour; e.g., wife stops nagging after you take out the
> garbage.
Reinforcement is indeed an interesting issue when played out in complex relationships. From a parental and educational point of view, sometimes negative reinforcement is reinforcement nonetheless. Sometimes the best way for the wife to get the husband to take out the garbage is not to nag. With children, too, when you don't reinforce attention-getting behavior, even negatively, then they will do more of the behavior that does get reinforced. Classroom teachers will sometimes ignore certain behaviors as a first step.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-11-24 00:24
In my experience (training singers and orchestras for musical productions - both professional and community based)
Negative feedback - I never point out shocking playing or singing to an individual in front of the company ... bad news if you do that. Instead I get them aside and have a chat ... if they get upset [edited - GBK ] (which happens) I then say "well, I could have made this comment to you in front of you peers but decided against this - would you prefer I single you out next time?" The worst thing I've had to do on the negative side is sack a pit musican for playing out of tune ... she was a respected violinist and took the news very badly. I gained full support of the rest of the production team (director and producer) before I spoke with her.
Positive feedback - I rarely give it out in front of a group to an individual - you just never know who you're going to upset. I will tell the whole company that the performance was splendid/great/fantastic and then single out individuals in a private environment.
Now - before you all blast me down with flames - this has been how I handled giving out good or bad information - whether I've done it correctly is open to conjecture.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-11-25 19:51
Hmmm... I'm still studying some of this. Lot's to digest, Hans, but I'm working on it.
Diz, I'm not sure that I would disagree with anything I read in your post. Will study it closer tonight.
One quandry that brings this to mind: I've had some parents of stellar students tell me that I was being too easy on them, while parents of students who didn't even learn most of their major scales thought I was trying to turn them into professional musicians. This is an area that I constantly try to reevaluate, because I want to be as consistent as possible in what I do--particularly among students who know each other.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-11-26 12:47
Hi Allen,
My two greatest clarinet teacher (one a student of Bonade, the other of Gigliotti) knew I was not going to be a professional symphonic clarinet player. These two great guys did have other students that were going to be tops.
Both gentlemen had the ability of making my lessons extremely meaningful at my level of playing. There were always important things to do and both teachers - each covered different areas - found those items and we worked dilligently. I might add that I was an adult, had several years of successful teaching experience already, was really a saxophone major, and I was an adult with a family as well. I believe all of these things were taken into consideration.
One thing though that might have been different was that I was a student in a large, midwestern state university. You find a greater cross-section of playing abilities in such a setting. These guys knew that and were able to accommadate virtually any level of student.
HRL
PS Allen, check into extinction as well as the Premack Principle in your search about reinforcement. Check this link
http://employees.csbsju.edu/tcreed/pb/operant.html
Skinner is the man!!! One of my heros.
Post Edited (2004-11-26 13:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-11-26 17:17
Professional vx. amateur is not really a concern with most of my students. The problem for them is to achieve and maintain basic competence in an area where they don't start study until sixth grade, and many first-chair high school players are shaky on their major scales.
Many high school bands are playing the same grade of music that my middle school band did in eighth grade.
I am concerned primarily with producing competent amateurs, and with making sure that anyone considering music in college will at least by ready to PURSUE music appropriate for an audition.
So I am trying to put a consistent face on what would be a bottom-line level of competency, where students will feel comfortable playing in community bands, playing solos in church, etc.
As discussed the thread on low motivation among clarinetists, I find that my clarinet kids are far less motivated than the sax kids, even though they have more challenging parts to play in band, and the opportunity of playing sax also.
So they only have a picture of themselves within our local scene. Areas only 100 miles away are FAR ahead of us, and our kids don't get to see this until they get a shot at All-State auditions or a new kid moves to their school from another area and blows everybody away.
Our city has a professional symphony orchestra, several good college music programs, a couple of first-rate community bands, and several outstanding school systems. There is an oversupply of private instruction. But the high school players--clarinetists in particular--seem to reject doing anything that competition does not force them into.
Many middle schoolers do quite well, but this quickly evaporates as they reach the high schools and see that so few others have put in the same work as they have. Many of these kids will lose their own motivation as they come into the high school atmosphere. Kids who have moved at a more average pace come into high school, see the apparent difficulty of the music, and simply abdicate from the ambition to conquer it.
And thus my quandry. Some of my students may be headed for the ultimate in negative reinforcement--being unable to take advantage of ANY adult playing opportunity. Some are quite self-satisfied by their competitive success, but they have yet to face being judged by 'the listener.' Some will completely avoid their third register because the band director is (justifiably) annoyed by the tuning. Many turn their motivation towards issues related more to marching band.
We can discuss ad nausem, all of the distractions of teen life, and some of the poison that marching band puts into the process. But what keeps coming back to me is that my job as a teacher is to make his/her musicianship a source of real pride, that a change of circumstances can't take away. Often, I think that we're moving into kind of a false, 'small pond' sort of standard that leaves the student with little or nothing, and has musicians in other genres scratching their heads.
This is less a problem with my sax students, but they enjoy much more intense competition, fewer fingering snags on their instruments, and the knowledge that those who want to jam, are going to have to learn to do what their guitar playing friends can do.
I find that the clarinetists need more of a reality check, but they tend to shield themselves from it as much as possible, and also have to work harder on the technical side to meet it. They need some warning before it actually confronts them.
So, chew on that a little, and later I'll share some examples of negative reinforcement that really turned me around as a player.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2004-11-26 17:54
allencole wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And thus my quandry. Some of my students may be headed for the
> ultimate in negative reinforcement--being unable to take
> advantage of ANY adult playing opportunity. Some are quite
> self-satisfied by their competitive success, but they have yet
> to face being judged by 'the listener.' Some will completely
> avoid their third register because the band director is
> (justifiably) annoyed by the tuning. Many turn their motivation
> towards issues related more to marching band.
>
>
>Hope I did that correctly, I have not used the "quote" mechanism previously. Allen, I have a bit of a problem with clarinet players being put off of playing because their band director is annoyed by their playing in the third register. As I have stated previously, I am an educator at the elementary level. Even so, I don't see the school music educator at any level prior to college as being responsible for preparing students to major in music. We expect that, in all subject areas, students are provided with standards based, appropriate instruction in all subject areas. What they choose to pursue at the college level is up to them. Students who wish to major in English have had appropriate preparation to do so. Most students will not. Why should band be any different?
That said, IMHO, all players should be encouraged, instructed, and, yes, tolerated unless you choose to have another ensemble which is audition based as well as your "regular" band or orchestra. That participation is valuable and I believe that the group can be successful given good, guided instruction and patience. As an educator, you're responsible for more than just the performance itself. You're responsible for the development of the child.
I have had a few students, during their stint with me, who have been not just in the classroom but in chorus and, in some cases, in band as well. Some of them have special needs and, as such, have trouble reading music, or using fine motor skills. Yet, they see music as the high point of their day because everyone enters that room on the same footing and they gain a sense of accomplishment. Do I cringe, when I hear them play or sing? Absolutely. Would I have it any other way? No. I know they have improved, but slowly. Many choose to go on to private lessons and almost all go on to the middle school chorus and band. Fortunately, around here we are not competitive with other schools.
Anything other than positive reinforcement would destroy them. Maybe I'd have a better band or chorus, but that's not what I see to be the point. Fortunately, the middle school and high school instructors in my town see things as I do. Those students who have a special interest and aptitude, of course we provide additional opportunities and direct toward private study.
Sue
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-11-26 18:20
Allen,
At the risk of stating the obvious, motivation is a very complicated subject, which is explains the abundance of theories of Motivation.
We have, for example:
Maslow's Hierarchy (motivation involves satisfying needs in a hierarchical order),
Herzberg's Two-Factor (some job factors are intrinsically satisfying and motivate indiduals while other factors can de-motivate),
Alderfer's ERG (similar to Maslow with fewer levels of hierarchy - Existence/Relatedness/Growth),
Vroom's Expectancy (motivation is a function of expectancy, valence, and instrumentality factors),
McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y (some people prefer to be told what to do, others want to share in the decision-making process),
Locke's Goal Setting (assumes that establishing challenging goals influences individual performance),
Adams' Equity Theory (focuses on comparisons; people compare their treatment to those of others),
McClelland's Learned Needs (behaviour associated with the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power is instrumental in performance of the individual), and many more, all with their own strengths and weaknesses.
If some of these look interesting to you, I would be happy to elaborate.
Some theories may be applicable in one instance, but not in another, since people's needs and goals vary; e.g., understanding Maslow's theory, a teacher would not try to teach a hungry student or one who felt unsafe.
IMO the challenge for a teacher is to acquire a good understanding of the things that motivate (and de-motivate) an individual student and use this knowledge to design an effective learning system for that individual. Easier said than done.
I applaud your commitment and concern for your students.
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-11-26 21:24
Hans,
In many ways, this topic - as well as your list - begins to bleed over into leadership as well as associated styles.
Two approaches I like very much are the work of Renis Likert and the designs of Blake and Mouton and the Managerial Grid. Not only must we consider the subject of motivational strategies but also how to create an environment to facilitate those strategies.
Blake and Mouton do some nice work defining the management style (could just as easily be teaching style) for those that are have employees/students that are willing and not or with persons of various maturity levels. Likert's Four Systems is classic!
HRL
PS A life-long eduator with a solid grasp of management; both fit together.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2004-11-27 15:10
Hank,
I agree with you, about the overlap between motivation and leadership and the importance of the learning environment.
I also have high regard for Likert's great work. IMO it has passed the test of time (~40 years?), and that makes it a classic.
I just re-read Allen's first post in this thread, where he referred to "work ethic, respect, reliability of attendance, give adequate notice of absences", and wonder if some of those could be issues more related to maturity (lack of) rather than motivation.
WRT Allen's: ...."am I tainting its contents by the fact that I have handed it to the student--and the student will now not get to discover this player or style on his/her own?"... IMO it is possible (or likely, if the student is not very motivated) that the student might, or would, never get to hear these learning materials if Allen were not providing them, and that would be the student's loss. Therefore I think it's the right thing to do. It doesn't prevent the student from looking for other materials. I give my class (university Business students) plenty of supplementary material every week with probably the same wish: that they read it and learn something from it or that it stimulates some thinking (I may be overly optimistic...). For most it is a waste of paper and my effort but if one of them benefits, then that makes it worthwhile.
Regards,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-11-28 02:30
Hans, you are right. I do consider matters of respect, work ethic, etc. to be of a different category than actually learning process. These are related to character, and are the ones that I am most likely to treat as deserving of negative reinforcement should positive reinforcement fail.
Overall motivation varies, and I generally adopt the goal of fulfulling the most basic of competencies as goal #1. In my view, most students will be amateurs if they continue to play at all, and those who have professional aspirations will have considerable self-motivation. I generally push my students to learn basic digital skills (their major scales), basic control skills (pleasant sound and stable pitch) and basic theory skills (primarily counting, key signature, and other reading issues). This is what I consider NECESSARY for earning good self-esteem and making a contribution to one's ensembles.
The study of repertoire, jazz improvisation, etc. are things that I consider optional for most players, and it is not necessary for me to push them into studying these against their will or their interest. Students who are strong on their basics can work on sight-reading, duets, etc. with pretty good success and most will be at or near a first-chair position in most schools.
Much of what I'm wrestling with is how to be more forceful about BASIC skills in a world where standards are fluid and a geographic location where competition between students is pretty minimal. I don't need to put these guys on the college track, but to lack basic skills is a handycap.
This is something that concerns me greatly because I've seen any number of outstanding younger players lose the wind in their sails when they reach high school and discover that the band is nearly devoid of upperclassmen with similar accomoplishments.
It is difficult in this day and age to demand so much from students that their basic skills appear to be a good compromise. I have to present realistic goals, but can't afford to be as flexible as I would with higher goals.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
