Some of the recent discussions about motivating students have reminded me of a couple of conference presentations I heard years ago on how casino game (slots) and video game developers considered ergonomics (if you're comfortable you'll play longer) and psychology (how to get people to keep "going for it") into game development. Obviously this is BIG bucks and taken incredibly seriously. I don't remember much from the presentations (they were several years ago) but I remember that much.

I'd like to hear from Monica on this.

Rather than think of it as a situation where "kids these days" are goof-offs and spending more and more time playing these games, the reality is that corporations who profit from this have invested (and continue to invest) towering amounts of money into, basically, how to get someone 'hooked'. Kind of like how they make cigarettes more addictive.

Now, I'm not suggesting that there is necessarily a dark force at work...mostly I'm wondering how piano pedagogy materials could be produced that use the lessons learned on how to get people excited about and invested in an activity. Surely there has been research that could be applied to piano or violin practicing.

I'm not suggesting computer programs or electronic keyboards, rather something like method books and suggested practice strategies that will give enough of a 'reward' to engage the students, keep them working longer, and bring them more success.

In a quick web search I also found the following Very Interesting Thoughts "Hardcore" versus "Casual" Gamers :





This is very interesting to consider - applying these same ideas to piano - 'hardcore' vs 'casual' pianists. Certainly sounds familiar from conversations here, no? Except here, I don't get as much of a sense of condemnation for 'casual' gamers as some people exhibit towards 'casual' piano students.

Great post! I'm designing my digital pedagogy with a lot of video game models in mind, with the strongest emphasis as follows:

1. Immediate immersion into material
2. Precise focus on objectives
3. Making sure successes are always within easy reach and scaling material accordingly

The casual vs. hardcore gamer models really deserve better attention from the piano pedagogy community. If the vast majority of casual gamers were forced to first be proficient in academic programming languages, the video game industry would grind to a halt. Why then do we apply that regimen to piano students? I fear that more often than not, we tend to be guilty of "killing with correctness". In other words, stifling the joy of music out of fear that they aren't doing x, y, or z exactly right.

I'm not advocating a complete abandonment of sound pedagogical techniques or traditional training. I just think that the cart gets shoved in front of the engine far too often. I have a student who actually approached me to have 2 lessons a week - one for repertoire, the other for scales, arpeggios, and heavy-duty technique. Can you believe that, a student actually asking for exercises on his own? That would never happen unless the student sees genuine progress in his/her studies, falls in love with music, and truly understand the benefits of the nuts and bolts of a more intense level of study. I believe all three ingredients are necessary before a casual player can become a "hard core" player.

Video games excel at providing both attainable goals and incentives to continue and improve and "level up". I think we would do well to play more games and use our imaginations to apply some of those tools into our teaching studios.

There's a 'reward' inflation war going on. We couldn't possible keep up, besides our intrinsic reward is hard to beat.

I believe that the psychological aspect
of piano playing--which is just
as important, and intertwined with,
the physical--is completely
overlooked.

For example, the first thing teachers
do is force "correct" fingering and
technique on students. But the best
fingering and technique for a particular
student is going to depend on his
individual physiology and psychology.
But no teacher can really know
a student's physiology and psychology,
and so I contend that no teacher can
really determine what the best
fingering and technique for a student
is. Moreover, the "correct" fingering
and technique that teachers force
on a student is typically what is
comfortable for them, but this is
not going to fit another individual.
Even worse, teachers often simply
use the printed fingering on a
score, which was devised by an
editorial hack at the music publisher
in the early 1900's as a sort
of generic, one-size-fits-all fingering,
actually more of a marketing consideration
than anything else, since
the public resists buying a score
with no fingering. This is hardly
going to be suitable for everyone.


I believe this is why the dropout
rate is so high in piano. When
you force something that is unsuitable
and uncomfortable on a student,
the activity involved becomes
associated with unpleasantness.
And when an activity becomes
associated with unpleasantness, the
student will eventually quit it.

People might counter that some students
seem to thrive on this forced
fingering and technique, but sooner
or later this is going to catch
up with the student: he might
lose interest later; his playing
might become disspirited; he
won't be able to progress after
a certain point; etc.

And there might be quick fixes
attempted. This whole thing about
relaxation when playing, in my view,
is simply an attempt to remedy
the damage created by years of
playing with fingering and technique
that is unsuitable for an individual.
But the basic problem is not
addressed by this, and so nothing is
really accomplished.

What could psychology possibly have to do with fingering?!

I believe that the psychiatric aspect of piano playing (or at least posting about piano playing) is completely overlooked despite ample evidence of pathology repeated ad nauseam.

Steven

Suppose there is complete fingering
on a score. Anyone can use this
and play, but given the differences
in physiology among individuals, this
is sure to be uncomfortable in some
way. And when something is physically
uncomfortable, it's going to be
a thorn in the psyche.

Furthermore, suppose an individual
doesn't like the idea of doing
things by the numbers. This alone
will cause following a complete
fingering scheme on a score to grate on
the psyche.

Suppose an individual liked to
play with his fingers as a child
and developed a preference for
certain fingers. He would then
prefer the same fingers in playing.
Preventing him from employing his
favorite fingers in playing would grate
on the psyche.

And so forth.

No I think you have it backwards. Successful industries like video and casino gaming do research into what CONSTITUTES a reward that will keep people engaged and incorporate that into their process...in this case, it would be incorporated into the pedagogical materials (not research into how to take the reward and make people see it as desirable - THAT is advertising, and yes it works but it's harder and much less likely to work due to individual personality and circumstance difference).

What I'm suggesting is setting up method books and practice suggestions to make use of what has been learned in the last couple of decades about activities that people find pleasant and rewarding and will keep them engaged.

All I am saying is, rather than carp and moan about how hard it is to get kids to practice...wouldn't it be revolutionary if kids were as anxious to practice, as engaged in practice while doing it, and willing to spend as much time practicing, as they are video games?? Video game developers have LEARNED how to get people to this point. It was not just a fluke! That can be applied to other (and, in my opinion, much more rewarding) activities than video games!

Yes that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not remotely a programmer but I work in a university department that deals with educational technology. I hear lots of discussions from co-workers on exactly these subjects. I was wondering where 'cutting edge' piano pedagogy was in relation to these ideas.



That was just sort of a side/related idea that struck me when I was looking into the original thoughts about reward systems and engagement.


=) Yeah. If I had the time to practice and the money to do it, I would! Sadly that's not gonna happen. But I have learned the value of 'nuts and bolts' from the school of hard knocks.

If you mean to make explicit the various intrinsic rewards then I'm with you.

What I mean (as I think this through more I'm better about verbalizing it ) is to set up the method books and other pedagogical materials/systems in a way that incorporates what has been learned about

1-how to 'set up' a reward (what aspect of piano improvement do students find exciting and satisfying at each small stage of learning, how to describe that in their method books...ie-point out exactly what aspect of playing or improvement in playing is seen as "the goal" on this page/for this piece...tell students when they've reached it, and congratulate them somehow)

2 - how to put these rewards in the best and most satisfying order throughout the methods series

3 - how to use intrinsic rewards to get people playing for longer and longer periods

4 - how to help current and future teachers incorporate this knowledge throughout their careers.

That is one way that piano students have the advantage to video gamers...expert one-on-one instruction each week!

Hmm, you realize each student is different and therefore respond to different rewards at different stages?

If kids were THAT different and had to be individually considered, then so many kids would not play video games (and definitely would not all be playing the Same game or few games) for an hour or more a day. Which research shows that most kids do.

Although, now that you mention it, I'm sure that game developers build into individual games aspects designed to give the game a broad spectrum of appeal to different types of users.
Which is also something pedagogy developers could learn about.

Furthermore, boys (the demographic piano teachers say they have the most trouble reaching) spend a lot more time doing it than girls. Clearly, game developers have found out how to successfully engage kids (and not just kids) in an activity that, if you think about it, could have a lot of similarity to playing a musical instrument.

"We" (I'm not a teacher but I'm interested in people being successful at the piano) could learn from what they know. This is not rocket science, is what I'm saying. There are principles that can be learned from the research game developers do, if we can overcome the reluctance to sully ourselves and the idea that a noble purpose like piano playing should be "above" crap like video games.

What aesthetic sense do you think computer games engender?

I think we are talking about different things.

I am talking about using proven successful ways to engage kids (and adults) in an activity. Techniques and knowledge about reward systems and what kids find fun and engaging that are so successful that they have succeeded in getting the vast majority of kids to spend an hour + a day focused on "practicing" their gaming skills.

I'm not talking about using video games to teach piano. I'm talking about using what game developers have learned to develop piano pedagogy methods that will get kids that engaged in playing the piano.

I thinks there's a big difference between the psyche of pianists and gamers and even smokers. Playing piano is not a matter of being hooked to it. It is just plain playing like living. Otherwise, you just forget how it is to live. I think my idea is confusing...

Interesting thread. I had a few reactions. The first thought I had was a quasi-cynical one: the reason video game designers are doing such a great job at designing games to be more psychologically rewarding is that the financial reward for those companies is great enough that they invested the $$ to hire the industrial psychologists to do the ergonomic research etc. The major companies run focus groups, do beta testing, and so forth to make sure that their games have the highest possible appeal to their customers. They also have the deep pockets to pay for all that.

Individual music teachers obviously don't have the resources to hire educational psychologists to design their curricula. Perhaps music curricula publishers do, but maybe the suits in those companies have run the numbers and decided the potential market and raise in profitability doesn't merit the outlay.

My second reaction is that there's probably a lot of existing pedagogical research that could be applied to teaching piano that hasn't been. Most colleges have schools of education, and many of them have faculty cranking out studies that could be useful. One of my colleagues, for example, has done dozens of studies looking at how to highlight text so as to enhance learning. There's probably a take-home lesson in his studies that could be useful to teachers. But you need somebody to serve as a bridge between the "pure" research and applying it to actual practice.

My third reaction is to be wishy-washy and speculate that maybe the existing pedagogical research isn't all the useful because the context of piano lessons (one on one interaction, emphasizing skilled motor actions more than verbal learning) is different enough that much of what we know might not apply.

Fourth, while I don't the situation is as hopeless as kbk implies in the statement that "every student is different," I do agree that there are broad developmental differences that would suggest the use of different strategies. Young children will respond well to earning gold stars at each lesson and filling up a sticker chart in the hopes of earning a tacky plastic trophy. Adolescents or adults would greet such an approach with disdain.

Last, although I'm not sure of the specifics of how you'd implement this, there are general principles of psychology that could be put to great use--but I'm guessing these are principles that most if not all of you teachers are already using: Break a task or skill to be learned down into meaningful units. Set goals at an intermediate level of difficulty--not so easy they can be accomplished immediately, but not so hard that it's frustrating. Stress distributed practice (a little bit every day) rather than massed practice (a mammoth session once a week).

For a modest contract of only $100,000, I'd be more than happy to put together a focus group and create a Working Paper on optimum teaching strategies for piano.

I think this is a really interesting question. Here are some more thoughts.

(I'm thinking in the contexts of MMORPS here, "massively multiplayer online role-playing games". These are the ones that involve a shared world so that players can interact in real-time with each other, and require a monthly subscription, rather than a one-time purchase, to play.)

1. These games usually have different roles for players. You can be the big strong guy that bashes things, the one that heals people, the delicate but deadly spell-casting geek, etc.

Each type of character requires a different style of playing the game, and different skills to be developed. Some people can play multiple types well, but alot of people gravitate towards certain types. People who are naturally cautious and hesitant don't make the best "rush in to the room of monsters first and start bashing" characters

This gives people a chance to find a role that is good match for their personality and the types of things they like to do.

It would be much less fun if *everybody* HAD to be a "fighter" type, because that was the only role available.

Could this apply to piano? Perhaps not everyone has the desire/personality to be a performer, or improviser, or composer.

Or for that matter - maybe some people really like classical, not just for the sounds, but because they enjoy the security of memorizing, the precision, and the way classical is practiced and played.

Maybe part of what draws others to jazz is the improvising and not having to stick to what's written.

Is it beneficial to take someone who has a very improvisitional nature, and put them in the classical category? Or does this just turn them off and drive them away?


2. These games have a strong social component. Part of why people stay signed up, and pay each month, is because they have friends (and often organized groups of people, "guilds") that they enjoy playing with.

The social component is specifically supported by the game (by making organizing "official" and easy, and by presenting challenges that are impossible for single individuals to overcome - ie monsters that are simply beyond what any one person, or even small group, can conquer. Team work is rewarded).

Is there a way to use this for piano? To build better social structures? I know some teachers have mentioned monthly groups where students play for each other (and hopefully get to talk to one another) - maybe more duets, or better, teaming up with teachers of other instruments to provide more duet/group playing opportunities beyond just piano?


3 - Rewards

This actually seems like the hardest thing to address in piano. In a game, the rewards can be controlled by the developers. They invent the rewards, and they can remove rewards!

To me, the biggest reward I see in piano is the music itself.

I know, personally, I do much better when I really connect with a piece I'm learning. If I don't like the piece, it's just "work" - just trying to get through it so that I can move on to the next one. I try, because I want to learn to play but I'm an adult and can see the bigger picture.

I think the teachers here know this and use it already, but finding music that the student likes can be tremendously motivating, and takes it from "I have to do this because it's assigned" to "oh yay, I can't wait to work on this piece." (at least, that's my personal experience!)


Just some random thoughts! Off to my lesson now!
-saerra

I'm actually starting to think about using Second Life as a piano teaching laboratory - has anyone here had any experience with teaching in Second Life? I've heard of seminars and classes set up there...i'd love to give that a try someday!

But gamers don't know anything about computing.... They just know how to operate the game. You are suggesting this is good because they enjoy themselves even though they have no knowledge of all the technology they are using?

I play games.
I program.
I've programmed games.

They are completely different practices and really should not be compared.

The difference is being able to play a song vs. being able to write that same song. To be able to write, you must have a firm understanding of the structure; to be able to play, you just have to know *how* to play (whether you're good at it is a completely different matter.) As for "difficulty," (a relative concept,) it's pretty easy to make games easier/harder by just tweaking the numbers. To be able to design a good game is a skill. To be able to turn that design into good code is yet another skill.

Games have very tangible results/rewards. Ironically, technical exercises have much more tangible results than learning how to play a song--and yet they're the most dreaded part of piano learning--that is, until they're learned well, and then they are a lot of fun to breeze through as fast as you can. (Think about it.)

What if instead of writing/teaching notes to a song, we wrote/taught steps incorporating different "technical exercises." Like instead of learning to dance one limb at a time, you learn dance moves, and can string them together (with practice. The more practice, the better you get.)

Good things:
Immediately rewarding.
Progress is clearly seen (or not seen.)
It is easy for anybody to identify what needs to be improved.
It is easier to compare oneself to other "players."

Problems with this that come to mind right away:
Piano music gets more complicated than just "dance moves."
(However, there is a lot to be said for lead sheets here.)
A whole system of naming/patterns would need to be devised (which would then need to be abbreviated somehow.)
In a 5-finger position, there are tons of different patterns that would be useful to learn. (Pick up any technique book--there they are.) While games have proven humans have an amazing capability to remember inane related stuff, it comes down to just be more practical to teach music reading and pattern recognition. Maybe in teaching it we need to have more quizzes to test out students. Perhaps flash cards of patterns could be shown for 1-2 seconds--not enough time to read the notes--and the student would have to play it back.

In any case, I've gotten off track a little.

...

I was planning to say more, but what I'm concluding is that, due to the nature of piano, if we stick with the more traditional lesson concept (ie. teacher + student without a computer,) there is not too much that can be done differently. The method books are there to give the levels, the rewards.

Perhaps it is not the material that is the problem, but the entire approach to the piano and lessons in general. We tend to be a rather elitist bunch of people, but that's seen with near any art.. not to mention calling it "practice" and "lessons" and "exercise"--ugh! Sign me up for something else.

"Heart and Soul" and just about every kid in the school knowing it comes to mind. As an elitist piano player, I happen to hate that song with a passion, but there is a lot to said about the way is spreads like wildfire--the patterns, the ease, the variability, the social aspect, the way it sounds more complicated than it is, the challenge to stay "with the beat," the teamwork, etc.

Having followed this thread from the outset, and by the way, I think it is an amazingly well thought out premise, I wish I could contribute with an equally amazing 'Eureka' type comment, but I am sadly lacking in that department.

The analogy with video games, is a good one, but most players, immediately look online for the 'cheats'. There are very few available for piano players.

To make piano 'cool' seems to be the hardest thing.

I teach both piano and guitar, and guitar wins, hands down, for most teenagers.

When I ask my students to name three great contemporary guitarists, the answers come immediately.
Not so, when I ask for three pianists.

However, piano seems to be making a comeback, amongst the young, with music from 'Final Fantasy', composers like Yiruma, etc.

My piano students continually amaze me by bringing this kind of music to my attention, and they put far more effort into learning and practising this music, than any of the standard repertoire I give them, and it is great to see the passion they have for contemporary music, which they can play to their friends, who can instantly identify with the music, and begin to realise that piano is cool, after all.

Although I may be an 'old codger', I am always open to, and interested in, any new ways of bringing the joy of music making to as many people as possible.

Skype lessons, have opened up a whole new world for me, and I know a few people who perfom in 'Second Life', but didn't realise that there were teaching opportunities there. ( thanks for that info, Hugh)

There will always be a place for traditional methods, and quite rightly so, but any technology that can enhance our efforts, and inspire students, should be grabbed with both hands.

This has to be one of the best topics I've read in a long time. Thanks, Prodigal Pianist, for starting it!

Cathy

Thanks.
I'm just grateful you all didn't look at it and think "what a dork" (I'm sure some of you did, but not all of you, which is comforting)