Objective Language in Applied Music Instruction

The clicker

What if your clarinet teacher used a clicker on you in your next lesson? Yes, a clicker, like for training a dog, clicking when you did something correctly. Do you think it would feel insulting? Distracting? Do you think it would help you learn?

Orthopedic surgeon Martin Levy is pioneering an approach to teaching that uses operant conditioning (think B.F. Skinner) to give positive feedback with a clicker. In a 2018 episode of NPR’s “Hidden Brain” podcast, Levy describes using this to help people learn both Frisbee technique and how to do surgery. A 2016 study he co-authored found that teaching medical students surgical procedures using a clicker was more effective than a traditional teaching method.

Why does it work? The theory is that the clicker presents absolute objectivity in instruction, removing the interpersonal element of teaching so that the student can focus on the procedure they are attempting to execute. There is no praise, no criticism, a simple stating of facts where necessary and a *click* when competency is achieved. The student’s focus then remains on learning rather than on pleasing the instructor. The clicker is efficient, giving the student only the information they need (“this is correct”), and it doesn’t waste time on long explanations. It also doesn’t activate the student’s emotions as an expression of praise or disappointment could.

Objective language in music instruction

This method struck me as having so much relevance to music instruction. No, I’m not suggesting using a clicker during a student’s playing – it would be disruptive to the sound, for one thing. But what if, instead of a click, you substituted a simple “Yes.” What if, instead of “Good job” – which implies a good/bad dichotomy – you said, “Now I can hear the F-sharp coming through.” Or instead of, “You still aren’t getting the leap smoothly there,” how about “That leap still sounds uneven.” These changes in language may seem small, but they add up, big time. I know, because I have had teachers that spoke to me like this.

I remember Dr. Jim Gillespie saying to me in a lesson, “That was a conservative tempo choice,” when I hadn’t worked something fast enough. Think about that. He could have easily said, “you still need to work on speed there,” or worse – “Why isn’t that faster? I told you to get it up to this tempo. You’re never going to be able to play it with the piano at that speed…” His objectivity gave me the information I needed to fix the problem without shaming, putting the focus on the music rather than on me as a person and player. As a result, lessons were informative and enjoyable.

Some teachers default to subjective, judgmental “you” language in the hopes that it will motivate the student to work harder, encourage the student to take personal responsibility for their own learning, and hey, perhaps even take some of the blame off themselves when a student isn’t performing up to par. Then they heap praise when the student rises to the occasion and does what is asked.

But as a parent (and one who has read far too many parenting books), I know well that praise can backfire. Too much praise can make a kid feel constantly judged. The flip side of praise is expressing disappointment or shaming. Both praise and shaming imply that the goal is to please the parent, or teacher, or boss. But the goal is really to learn and do your best. Right?

Why is subjective language a big deal?

Perhaps this seems like all too much Millennial coddling. Shouldn’t students be able to take criticism? Is it so wrong to praise them when they deserve it? Of course, a well-deserved expression of pride when a student performs well is only natural. And criticism is absolutely crucial to learning; they need to know what they are doing wrong in order to fix it. But judgmental language can lead to emotional manipulation, and this kind of manipulation – whether intentional or perceived – negatively impacts performance.

The one-on-one nature of applied music lessons can be intensely personal. Some teachers take advantage of this intimate setting to manipulate students into performing at the level desired, or making displays of loyalty, or worse. A toxic culture can emerge, one in which students end up in counseling for crippling performance anxiety, pitted against each other in competition for praise, questioning their self-worth, or stifling their questions or creative ideas. I’m sad to say that if you’ve been to music school, you’ve probably observed or experienced this to some degree.

Real-world examples

I’m an editor and avid reader, so I pay a lot of attention to words. After I learned about Martin Levy’s research, I began changing the way I spoke to my students. It turns out that nonjudgmental language is usually more precise and effective than what I might have said before out of habit. Below are some alternate phrasings that are similar to what I use in my own instruction. Perhaps you will find them useful too.

Replacing judgmental statements with questions can be another great option. It quickly changes the whole scenario from criticism of the student to self-criticism and critical thinking.

Perhaps the cycle of praise and judgment comes from teachers we’ve had, and from our own insecurity. To view the student as an extension of ourselves, a reflection of our own self-worth, is tempting – but it is a fallacy. We must respect the student’s ability to think for themselves, provide them with accurate information, and help them to find their own inner motivation. Turning to more objective language during instruction can be an important key to helping them succeed as creative, confident, resourceful musicians in the 21^st century.