Word Choice in Pedagogy

[nkunkle]

The idea of teachers selecting or avoiding specific words in lessons in order to influence the way the student thinks of broader subjects is something that I became aware of during my undergraduate studies. Our teacher made a conscious effort to avoid using words like “force” and even “support,” and instead might use "energy" as a way for us to play in a more relaxed way and avoid using excess tension. Throughout studying and teaching, I have become more aware of some of these word choices.

Another example in my own teaching is using the words “strengths or weaknesses” when describing someone’s playing rather than saying they are “better or worse.” In my own playing, especially in high school and early college, I was more in the “better or worse” mindset, and as a result, it closed me off from being able to learn from people who I thought I was “better” than, and so I wasn’t able to make the most out of interactions with that person. However, when I started viewing each of us as as having different “strengths and weaknesses,” I was able to play with anyone and we could each sharpen each other’s weaknesses and each improve as a result.

A last example is using the word “challenging” instead of “difficult” or “hard,” and never telling a student that they will be “frustrated” in a practice session.

I am curious what words other teachers and performers choose to emphasize or avoid in lessons to help shape the studio they are seeking to create. Likewise, I am also interested to hear if you do not employ any kind of word choice in lessons, but leave whatever vocabulary you use up to the individual needs of each specific student.

[starkadder]

Where do you live that pedagogy is legal?

[Craig Swartz]

Hmmm, often, though, a demonstration is worth 10,000 words.

[lmaraya]

I use "free" instead of relaxed to refer to air usage because to me, relaxed implies inaction.

[furcifer]

Well, I like to say, "full" instead of "loud", since loud can still be thin, airy and brittle. It's just as important to leave NO terms UNDEFINED. Just referring to "dark" and "bright" doesn't cut it. Any such adjective still requires EXPLANATION and DEMONSTRATION in order for a student to really understand the content and boundaries that such subjective terms are trying to define.

Just to make things harder, most recordings and speakers playing them back will ALWAYS take something away. Students need to hear LIVE GENUINE UNFILTERED SOUND, right from the bell, to really develop an EAR that can then go back and detect the ghosts of what has been filtered out by the recording and playback processing.
The same thing happens with words: Indeed, the whole concept of achieving the ability to play a desirable note and then describing it with spoken language, and then expecting those words to be translated back to an identical desirable note played by another person is totally unrealistic on its face, LOL! The best that the spoken explanation can ever hope to provide is a framework of context that a student can relate their results to, in order to help them identify what a successful result really sounds like, in front of as well as behind the horn.
_________________
Stomvi S3 Big Bell -2018
Bach 180ST37 -'80
Benge CG -'78
Buescher LP 9 -1926
Getzen 896S-4 flugel -'86
Conn 18H bone -'64
Getzen M2003E Bb/G bugle
Getzen Titleist 2v soprano G -'79
King K-50 G mellophone
Henri Gautier Cornet C/Bb/A -1919

[Nonsense Eliminator]

I'm not necessarily successful, but I try to avoid giving negative instructions. That is, rather than, "Don't do X," I try to say, "Do Y." "Not X" is often a very big and totally useless target.
_________________
Richard Sandals
NBO

[dstdenis]

As a student, I would prefer word choice that's clear and insightful. If I sense that the instructor is choosing his/her words carefully for diplomatic or psychological reasons, that almost makes it worse by drawing attention to the diversion. Just give me the observation; don't worry about my psychological well being. I'm going to decode the words into my own way of understanding their meaning anyway.

I enjoyed watching this masterclass by Barbara Butler. She set the stage nicely at the beginning with kind, empathetic, diplomatic, supportive words. But when it came time to give feedback on each student's playing, she didn't pull any punches. She wasn't being insensitive, but she was just trying to be clear and make sure that each student fully understood her points. In a way, that kind of direct honesty shows respect for the student because the instructor believes the student can handle the truth and really wants to hear what she thinks.

I think that's the way to do it. If I were playing for her, or any instructor, that's how I'd like the feedback communicated to me.
_________________
Bb Yamaha Xeno 8335IIS
Cornet Getzen Custom 3850S
Flugelhorn Courtois 155R
Piccolo Stomvi

[Billy B]

The perfect lesson has no words.
_________________
Bill Bergren

[JoseLindE4]

[Tpt_Guy]

I tend to agree with avoiding negatives whenever possible. In other words, emphasize what a student or player is doing well and then also direct attention to what could be improved by giving a suggestion or demonstration as to how it could be improved. For example, if a player says something like, "I think my sound is too bright" or too this or too that, I ask, "What sound do you want?" If the player is saying, "I don't like my sound" and being very general about it then I'll ask, "What do you want to change about it?" Then I can offer suggestions. In other words, I try as much as possible to put the student in control of what he is doing, since that's what he wants.

Focusing on negative, such as saying, "___ sounds bad" or saying the sound or phrase is "too _____", or saying "don't do ____" actually puts attention on the negativity and rather tends to get more of it because the student can start fighting it, which just makes it worse. Further, since our sounds are looked at as signatures - direct reflections of who we are - it rather tends to upset us when someone describes our sounds in some way we don't like. Some players can take it.

Experienced trumpeters generally can take direct criticism very well.

Younger players (and I don't mean younger as in age, but length of time playing) are a little easier to bruise with words.
_________________
-Tom Hall-

"A good teacher protects his pupils from his own influence."
-Bruce Lee

[Nonsense Eliminator]

[DaveH]

[JoseLindE4]

Sticking with the positive instruction theme, I find it far more successful to long term to teach what something is concretely rather than what it is relative to where they are.

It's better to teach a student what in-tune sounds like rather than just tell them to play sharper or flatter (unless it's just one note and a more experienced player). It's better to teach someone what a resonant sound actually sounds like and have them chase the sound than to tell them to play lower or higher on the pitch.

Kentucky windage - adjusting in the immediate moment - works for a short while, but long term it's better to have something solid. It's better to have players who will fix their own problems than have players who have many problems you can quickly and temporarily fix.

[TKSop]

It depends on the student...

To some extent, surely it's less important that they know what they're actually doing than that they're actually doing it right?

If you give them an instruction that's perfectly reasonable, positive/encouraging and has worked with other students, yet gets the wrong results with this one - that's where your true value as a teacher lies: to spot that it hasn't worked and to try something different...
Whether that's explaining the same thing better, or taking a different tack to achieve the same end?

I'm sure many have met the anecdote about Maurice Andre's​ disbelief in tongue level changing with pitch - clearly the knowledge of how it worked wasn't important to him getting the right results... In some cases perhaps it could even be better to leave misconceptions alone if they're doing little harm and/or there's no benefit to correcting them.


So in essence, it's not so much that there are right/wrong ways to explain (though patterns are likely to emerge) as that the instructions are properly understood and implemented - and that observation following instruction is every bit as important as observation preceding instruction... And both parts of this observation are why forum based advice can never match a good in-person lesson.

[ATrumpetBrony]

[Billy B]

[mcstock]

[mmarie03]

[quote="Craig Swartz"]Hmmm, often, though, a demonstration is worth 10,000 words. [/quote]


Agreed! Many times when I'm with young players there is more call and respond, repeat after me, or "do this" exercises. It's easier for kids to imitate than follow extremely precise instructions some times. Do for sure, less is more!