Journal Entry - Chapter 4 (Colwell and Goolsby)

February 28, 2007
The fourth chapter of Colwell and Goolsby is entitled Motivation. This chapter describes in some detail both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. I will not analyze each and every item listed under each sort of motivation, but there are many listed for each (17 and 18, respectively). Many are quite obvious, but several are certainly worth consideration. For example, under intrinsic motivation, number 4 says: “Relate technical drill to real music.” I find this one interesting because it can be easily abused. As students are inherently disinclined to care about things of which they cannot see the immediate importance, anything done in an ensemble setting will be more meaningful if it is related to the content at hand. However, I would suggest that there is a place for technical drill for technical drill’s sake also. Particularly from a private teacher’s perspective (if the students, in fact, are studying privately), the students should be taught various technical exercises, as these drills will improve their technical prowess and make difficult passages they may encounter in the future all the easier to play.

Number 11 under intrinsic motivation says: “Obtain good equipment and facilities.” This is unfair. While I would agree that high-quality equipment and facilities can only, um, facilitate better music, they do not inherently cause better music to happen. Similarly, despite what the author says, (“an inferior instrument handicaps the student and may embarrass her as well”), crappy instruments can produce quality sounds. It may be tougher (depending on particularly what I wrong with the instrument), but unless it is actually broken, old, lower-quality instruments do not prevent music from happening; true musicians will make music regardless of the instrument they are handed.

Under extrinsic motivation, the author lists as numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 topics that deal with playing tests and competition within the instrumental ensemble. Excerpts from these numbers: “Competitive seating plans are an excellent stimulus,” “Tryouts for chair positions are important,” and “Competition on technical proficiency has a place.” I whole-heartedly agree. Despite some discussions (in other classes, in particular) that seemed to suggest that playing tests do not primarily promote musicianship, I think that they do. We are in America. Competition drives a capitalistic society, and it is an idea with which we are all familiar. In an ensemble, then, competition causes students to want to improve. Sure, music should inherently (intrinsically) make the student want to practice and get better, this is obviously not often the case. Thus, external motivation such as comparison to other students does, in fact, often make a difference. I do not think that there is one certain answer to all situations; seating by chairs does not fit in every school situation. Nonetheless, I believe that it does tend to be a good idea, and I intend to implement it in my school band program some day, if it fits the atmosphere at the school (and if it doesn’t – like if it’s an excessively outcome-based school – than I will likely not want a job there).

[ home ]  [ philosophy ]  [ mused courses ]  [ pgp ]  [ intasc standards ]  [ links ]