1

Cognitive psychology has a growing knowledge base about learning, motivation, and developmental change, all of which have important implications for educators. This project aims to make that knowledge base more accessible. Prominent psychologist George Miller (1969) noted that psychology can (and should) be learned and put into practice by the general public in their daily lives. Miller called for psychologists to “give away” their knowledge, whenever reasonable and plausible, in order to educate the public and improve the skills they have for managing well-being and psychological health.  This project is, in many ways, a response to Miller’s call–an effort to give psychology away.  There are many evidence-based tools that can be adapted for use in music-learning, and this guidebook is a first step in making that adaptation.

A risk in “giving psychology away” is that evidence-based tools can become diluted or misused. Many publicly accessible resources take the form of “self-help,” a widespread genre of writings intended to foster self-guided improvement in cognition, emotion regulation, and other forms of wellbeing.  Unfortunately, much has been published that is not based in psychological science, and much of what was originally evidence based has been misinterpreted to an extent that renders it ineffective. For example: much of self-help literature focuses on a highly individual self, largely detached from its social and cultural context. This isolated approach to improving well-being is significantly lacking, as it ignores important dimensions of the self that are shaped by social relationships (Schamel, 2020). Another key example is the self-esteem movement, which still permeates much of our education culture. This line of thinking promotes high self-esteem as a causal factor for success, claiming that boosting self-esteem among students can solve large issues such as achievement gaps. Unfortunately, this view of self-esteem is false: self esteem is an outcome, not a cause (Kleinknecht, 2012). Promoting self-esteem in the classroom or private lesson by praising students regardless of their efforts or achievements can actually have detrimental effects (Baumeister et. al., 2003). Even Carol Dweck’s work on mindset theory (which I draw from in this project), though grounded in research, has been misconstrued. Far too frequently the concept of growth mindset–which Dweck originally presented, in her words, “to counter the failed self-esteem movement”–has  been used to further perpetuate it (Dweck, 2015).  Similarly, many believe that having a growth mindset has entirely to do with effort, when its reality is much more nuanced. In sum, interventions intended to improve well-being or reduce stress must be carefully evaluated and implemented with caution.

Despite an oversaturation of empty, self-help-like approaches, there are resources and interventions that can be implemented by educators and that utilize evidence based practices. For example, social psychologist Gregory M. Walton proposes “Wise Interventions,” practices that are aware of, or “wise to,” the multifaceted nature of human experiences, including sociocultural factors and individual vulnerabilities (Walton, 2018). The term “wise” in Walton’s work refers to interventions that draw from a solid foundation in empirical literature, with attention and responsiveness to highly varying needs and contexts. Walton’s wise intervention framework creates grounding for Miller’s idea of “giving psychology away.” By creating exercises that are “wise,” this project attempts to give away cognitive psychological principles in ways that are as effective and empirically-based as possible.

Approaching Motivation in Music Education

To begin a shift as educators toward “wiser” interventions in teaching, we must first examine current practices in music education–both its strengths and its pitfalls. One of the greatest challenges faced by music educators is that of motivation. In a discussion with classical guitarist Christopher Berg, author of Practicing Music By Design, I asked how he would approach motivating students to engage with the more difficult forms of practice. His book outlines in detail the kinds of work that is needed, based on neurological research and confirmed in the habits of great performers and teachers (Berg, 2019). It is an excellent collection of strategies, all of which require discipline and commitment. While Berg could speak for an hour on the ways students should approach practice to best develop their skills, when asked how best to encourage the motivation to do so, his response was brief:

“Yes, that is the question.”

As music educators, we have all wrestled with balancing what is naturally fun and desirable to students with the more burdensome technical work that is required to become skilled musicians. For example, — speaking as a violinist — learning and performing repertoire is perhaps more rewarding than playing a series of scales or exercises, but one cannot enjoy the musicality of a concerto without first learning the basics. While teachers have become increasingly creative in gamifying technique lessons (i.e., dressing technique exercises up as games), the reality is that some elements of practice will, at times, feel like a task. If we do not acknowledge this in our teaching, students will feel that something is wrong when they reach this point in their practice. If we simply avoid the difficult work of learning technique, students will cease to be adequately challenged, and both their progress and motivation will suffer. Our task is to foster in students the internal drive to push through the difficult, uncomfortable practice in order to enjoy the reward of performing a beautiful piece.

Music education as a field is still lacking a unified theory of motivation (Evans, 2015). Historically, we have approached it with external forces. For example, Berg discusses the age-old tradition in music studios of enforcing standards of practice through intense negative appraisals (Berg, 2019).  In essence, music instructors have historically felt a need to push students toward discipline; often by highlighting their errors and instilling a fear of ill-preparation for lessons, auditions, and performances. Our current practice, of course, has shifted from this extreme. However, its influences still permeate some of our teaching practices, albeit in more subtle ways.

Motivation via Self-Determination Theory

Harsh appraisals as a motivational tactic arise from an old paradigm in psychology, founded on external control as a means of changing behavior. This old theory of motivation suggests that students will not turn naturally toward disciplined practice, so they must be coerced into doing so. More recent research suggests otherwise. A theory of motivation and development known as Self Determination Theory (SDT) argues that in our healthiest natural state we are active and self-motivated. The environment we create for children can either nurture and maintain this natural state, or encourage passivity and learned helplessness. The key to increasing positive behaviors is not then, to force motivation via external forces, but to nurture the quality of natural motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

How, as educators, do we nurture students’ internal motivation? Self Determination Theory proposes that motivation is at its healthiest when basic needs are met: when we feel a sense of competence, when we are socially supported, and when we have autonomy, or ownership of our actions. These three core needs, competence, relatedness, and autonomy, are the critical factors that influence motivational quality. When students reach a point of dependency on external motivational forces, it is often because one or more of these needs is unfulfilled. For young music students to experience internally driven motivation, educators must provide them with opportunities to achieve competence, and recognize when they do so. Educators should also strive to create environments within their classrooms and private studios that are relationally oriented and supportive. Finally, educators must allow and encourage students to take ownership of their practice.

Motivational quality in Self-Determination Theory is organized on a continuum from external to autonomous motivation (see figure 1 in appendix). At the top of this continuum is optimal functioning; when we are at our healthiest (i.e., our needs are met) our motivation thrives. In its best form, motivation is intrinsic, fully autonomous, and positive behaviors are engaged in for love of the activity. This, of course is an ideal; perfect intrinsic motivation is not necessary or plausible for healthy learning in a music education setting. Music is a difficult skill; thus, practice will not always be intrinsically desirable. What can be achieved in musical practice is what Deci and Ryan (2008) refer to as Identified Motivation. Also on the optimal functioning end of the motivation spectrum, identified motivation is internally controlled, and difficult tasks are performed because they are recognized as important to the sense of self, though, as in musical practice, they are not always enjoyable. If a student identifies with their practice and with musicianship, they will be much more likely to return to it despite its difficulty.

Below intrinsic and identified motivation is a reasonable functioning range: where motivation is partially autonomous, but the behavior may be somewhat forced. Within this range are Integrated Motivation and Introjected Motivation. With integrated motivation, the behavior is performed because it is understood to be beneficial or healthy. Students informed of the benefits of music may be inspired by this knowledge to practice. This motivation, however, is not as fruitful as those in the higher functioning range. Integrated motivation is somewhat like sticking to a healthy but undesirable diet; the behavior may not be sustainable unless it becomes more important to the sense of self. Similar to integrated motivation, introjected motivation is somewhat externally forced. Introjected motivation is what occurs when students practice because they have internalized a teacher or parents’ voice telling them to do so. They may not even believe in the benefits of their work; they may only perform because they know that their supervising figure would approve. Positive reinforcement from teachers as a motivational tactic may lead to this kind of outcome. It will initially result in the desired behavior, but once the teacher is removed from the equation, the positive behavior will likely stop.

At the lowest end of the motivational spectrum are extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Amotivation is a complete lack of action, often an indication of an unhealthy state. Extrinsic motivation can produce positive behavior, but relies entirely on outside forces. If students do not practice unless given rewards or consequences to propel their action, they are externally motivated. According to Self Determination Theory, this reliance on external forces is not natural, and indicates a low-functioning state (Deci & Ryan, 2008). If students reach this point, it is because one or more basic needs are not being met, and as a response they have become passive or mechanized.

Music educators have the ability to guide students toward optimal functioning, internally controlled motivation. By meeting students’ core needs for competence, autonomy, and social relatedness, we can help young musicians begin to identify with their practice in adaptive ways. We need not engage in reward-and-punishment systems, which indicate to students that they have little control of their behavior, and lead to low-functioning states.  We would see better outcomes if, rather than relying on external forces, we encouraged practice by nurturing students’ intrinsic curiosity, creativity, and desire to learn.

Skill Development and The Shape of Change

I currently teach in a music education program called String Project, which offers group orchestra classes and private lessons to young string players, following standard methods of classical music training. The age range of our students is about 5 to 18. An interesting characteristic of our students is that most of them can tell you which Suzuki book they are in. Book one is for beginners. Book two is more advanced, and so on. They also each belong to one of our group classes: beginner, intermediate, or, if especially advanced, one of our auditioned ensembles. In sum, String Project students have no shortage of measurements to inform them what level they are at as players.

This brings us to a second challenge within music education: our educational systems often hinge on notions of structured learning that do not align with modern perspectives on developmental science.  We have standardized grade levels, auditioned ensembles of increasing advancement, and numbered book series that create linear maps of progressive growth. While these structures are important for organization within educational programs, they are not true reflections of the nature of developmental change and skill-learning.  Adolph et. al. (2008) offers an explanation for how we’ve come to adhere to the wrong shape of change, using studies of skill development in infants as an example. Early developmental psychology was dominated by Piagetian theory, which proposed that children go through predictable, fixed stages of learning. Piaget’s structure of growth was a stair-step model; once one stage was reached, it remained consistent until the next, a shape that has been reflected in longitudinal developmental studies. Adolph notes that while longitudinal studies often display linear, staged maps of growth, these descriptions of change are limited in their accuracy because they gloss over the natural process of day-to-day fluctuations. For example, as toddlers develop new motor skills, these abilities go through periods of inconsistency. The ability to walk might be present one day and gone the next, appearing through a series of fits and starts.  Over time, this inconsistency levels out, but it is critical to note that the onset of new skills is not a fixed point in time, as suggested by Piagetian stages.  The same concept can be applied to young music students: a new skill will not remain consistent as soon as it is learned for the first time. Similarly, x number of repetitions will not perfectly produce linear improvement. To better represent the complexity of growth, Siegler (2016) presents a new theory of learning, referred to as the Overlapping Waves Model. What Siegler observes is that as children learn a new skill, they do not approach it consistently in the same way. Rather, they go through a period of experimentation with several strategies, until gradually they find the approaches that work best. Each strategy might produce some positive learning outcome, which creates a wave-like structure in the shape of skill development. The outcomes fluctuate until the most useful strategies are found and become more settled.

What we have then, is a contradiction between the built-in structure of our education systems and the natural shape of students developmental growth. If students expect that their skill development occurs in consistent stages, as suggested by their education, they will find themselves frustrated when such linear growth is not what they truly experience. Approaching this issue requires that educators examine their own implicit theories about growth and learning. Implicit theories are internal beliefs about our attributes: how they change over time, and what causes that change to occur. What many music educators–and subsequently their students–have, is an implicit theory that skill development should be somewhat of a linear equation. This is born from old theories of development, as well as from the necessary staged structure that occurs within education systems. To help students embrace the natural complexity of their growth, it is important for educators to develop a more complex theory of change. Teachers’ implicit theories will inform students’ expectations of their own learning, which in turn, affects students’ responses to perceived setbacks. A more positive narrative allows for a more fluctuating, wave-like structure in the learning trajectory.