Why Thinking Out Loud Could Help You Become a More Effective Practicer & Problem-Solver

I once studied with a teacher who had this amusing habit of talking out loud to himself. Essentially offering a running play-by-play of whatever he was doing at the moment, whether he was sharpening a pencil, typing an email, or packing the trunk of a car.

I thought it was a personal quirk, but as the years have gone by, I’ve caught myself talking out loud on occasion.

And it seems I’m not alone in doing so.

What’s up with this? Are we just weirdos?

Or is there something about talking out loud that is actually productive and helpful when it comes to solving problems we might face in the practice room?

Thinking out loud

A variety of studies, dating back as far as the early 60’s (like this one), have found thinking aloud to enhance problem-solving, learning, and our ability to transfer learning from one task to another.

How exactly?

It’s been suggested that verbalizing our thoughts forces us to slow down, stop, and think through the important elements of the task or problem in front of us more carefully, deliberately, and consciously. It induces us to zoom out and adopt a big-picture view of the problem where we can focus more on our problem-solving process.

Umm…so what does that really mean, and what exactly are we supposed to say when we talk out loud to ourselves? Simply narrate what we’re doing as we do it? Give ourselves some encouragement when the going gets tough? Verbalize whatever thoughts pop into our heads, whether it’s relevant or not?

Five different approaches

A group of researchers put together a series of studies to test several such strategies in hopes of better understanding how to maximize the “talking-aloud effect.“

109 participants were tasked with solving different variations of the Tower of Hanoi puzzle (try it yourself right here) in the fewest number of moves, before being given a final test on the most challenging variation (to see how effectively they could transfer what they’ve learned to a new problem).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups, each of which was designed to test a different kind of thinking aloud.

Before each move, the “metacognitive” group was asked to answer questions like “How are you deciding which disk to move next?” or “How do you know that this is a good move?” The idea was to get them to adopt a higher-level process focus, by thinking about what they were doing (consciously monitoring performance) and how they were doing – i.e. whether the move was a good one or not (evaluating success/failure/effectiveness).

The “if-then” group’s instructions were a little more rigidly structured, but similarly intended to get them focused on the problem-solving process: “Before each move, I want you to tell me where you are going to move each disk, and why. Specifically, I want you to state this in an ‘if-then’ statement, for example, ‘if I move this disk to this peg, then this will happen’.”

The “problem-focused” group was asked to answer questions like “What is the goal of the problem?” or “What are the rules of the problem?” before each move. The idea was to give them some structure, but not at the higher process level of the other two groups.

The “think-aloud” control group was given no real structure to guide their thinking, but simply told to “think out loud while you are solving this problem. Try to keep talking as much as you can so that I can hear what you are thinking about as you solve the problem.”

The “silent” control group was given no additional instructions beyond the standard instructions for the puzzle, so did no verbalizing of their thoughts.

The results

So how did the groups do?

The researchers evaluated groups’ effectiveness by counting how many excess moves the participants made. In other words, each variation of the puzzle can be solved in a certain number of moves, so any moves above and beyond the minimum number of moves needed to solve the puzzle were considered “error” or mistake moves.

On average, the control groups (silent and think-aloud) made more mistakes than the two process-focused (metacognitive and if-then) groups. This was true for every variation of the puzzle during the practice trials – from the easiest 2-disk version to the more complex 5-disk version.

Then, when the participants were tested on their ability to solve the most challenging 6-disk puzzle (to see how effectively they could transfer what they learned from the practice puzzles), the control groups made an average of 2.5 error moves for every correct move vs. just 1 error move for the process-focused groups.

The problem-focused group fared somewhere in the middle. Better than the control groups, but not as good as the process-focused groups.

What does it all mean?

The data yielded a number of interesting findings, but the researchers made two observations that may be of particular interest to musicians.

1. Unless we are guided, we tend not to focus on or engage in process-level thinking. It’s more natural for us to simply play, stop, and repeat, until the problem seems to have been solved. Except that in “solving” problems on this implicit level, while we may get the job done in the short term, we make more mistakes during the process, we don’t actually know what the solution is, and therefore can’t apply it very effectively to future problems that we might encounter.

2. When, on the other hand, we focus on what we are doing and why we are doing it (whether we are verbalizing these out loud or not), we can not only solve problems more efficiently, but transfer those solution to similar new problems we might encounter later.

All in all, this means less wasted time trying to solve problems, and more time left to work on more interesting problems, or maybe even enjoy a bit of extra time outside of the practice room.

Take action

Try the Tower of Hanoi puzzle again, using the different strategies. How does this change the problem-solving experience?

Then, pick up your instrument and try thinking out loud (or have a student talk aloud) while trying to solve a problem. How does this change things?

It feels ridiculous at first, but after a little while, talking to yourself doesn’t seem so weird, right?

Additional reading

Apparently, the think-aloud strategy is commonly utilized by teachers. Learn more about how and why here: Think Aloud Strategy @TeacherVision

Photo Credit: CarbonNYC [in SF!] via Compfight cc

Ack! After Countless Hours of Practice,
Why Are Performances Still so Hit or Miss?

It’s not a talent issue. And that rush of adrenaline and emotional roller coaster you experience before performances is totally normal too.

Performing at the upper ranges of your ability under pressure is a unique skill – one that requires specific mental skills, and perhaps a few other tweaks in your approach to practicing too. Elite athletes have been learning these techniques for decades; if nerves and self-doubt have been recurring obstacles in your performances, I’d like to help you do the same.

Click below to learn more about Beyond Practicing – a home-study course where you’ll explore the 6 skills that are characteristic of top performers. And learn how you can develop these into strengths of your own. And begin to see tangible improvements in your playing that transfer to the stage.

Comments

12 Responses

  1. And what about using Thinking Out Loud to express enthusiasm after a problem solved ? or just after playing a piece, “oh!” “ah!” “wonderful!” after the very act of playing the first notes to foster intrinseque motivation? And using self Talk Techniques to encourage oneself in the practice room (i.e. self compassion) ? (like “courage”, “hold on”) I think all could form the sixth approach. I really like this article.

    I used this technique of self talk in the kitchen today. And I enjoyed food much more, doing sounds of enjoyment, and slowing down my intake, powerful technique in more rooms than the practice one.

  2. Quite interesting, and validating too — on several levels. I have always talked to myself, and to objects around me. Most commonly in the garden, for instance, when I talk to the plants, the soil, the birds, the bugs. Occasionally they even talk back 😉

    But in my teaching, I sometimes ask my students to ‘narrate’ what they are doing. This might be talking through the fingerings or note names of a scale, or in a tricky passage from a piece, saying aloud exactly what is happening: from ”right hand, finger 3, Middle C, up a 3rd” (for beginning students) to “right hand G major triad, broken, ascending scale from A to D, LH switch from finger 1 to 5, hold tie …..” They think I am nuts and yet, darling kid dude, it makes a huge difference. Your term ‘process-level thinking’ is great, I am going to use it. And the observation that ‘short-term’ solutions lead to only short-term ‘solutions’ is a good one.

  3. Good points, but what seems to me to be the obvious reason amongst adults. Talking (or shouting) at yourself is an attempt to get focused and stop drifting away. Quite often is it self critical talking as well and not really related to problem solving. Look at how Andy Murray used to be.

    Several people I know curse ans wear at themselves all through their practice.

    So the problem solving may be right some of the time but not, I think most of it.

  4. Looking at the study, it says the “thinking out loud” group was one of the controls, and that thinking out loud didn’t actually help.

    What really made the difference was the “higher process level” thinking. Speaking out loud doesn’t seem relevant in this case, unless I’m missing something.

    That said, in *teaching* getting the student to think out loud is really the only way to find out if they’re working at a higher process level or not, so there it’s more than valuable, it’s essential.

    Also, in spite of it not really being needed in solitary practice, I do actually talk to myself all the time, so take that for what it’s worth, lol!

  5. Even before playing, in the practice room, I noted an intellectual force that associated the pressions I did on the violin (string, way of holding the bow) to produc the sound I wanted. It is unconscious. I link the note to this bow grip. Thinking can (maybe) help changing that faster if I identifying not what I do but what I associate with the sound I want to produce, so it’s what I do, but what I do is associated with what I learned before, therefore, I should analyze what I am going to do in the next moment. So, thinking outloud, I should say the sentence “What am I just going to do?”. I am going to try that. All my problems, I think, come from this force, this habitual bad trained muscle. If I unsolved my muscle, I could learn much more things. I am going to try that.

  6. For me, if I “play” my piece during practice, “play” an excerpt, or “play” it from the beginning to the end, this is the sign I don’t practice well, I don’t learn anything new.

    I mustn’t play the piece or the song, I must play *with* it. =>this is important.

    This “involves repetition of small and very specific sections”.

    And how do I play?, I repeat it, and do like witty puns, but with notes !

    Yes, I kind of do puns with notes, spiritual jokes.

    This was my new view on practice, now !

  7. While reading the blog, I played the tower of Hanoi game. Interestingly, I also talk to myself aloud many times. My co-workers are often annoyed for the same. But, while playing the game so as I can finish it in 7 moves, me and one of my colleague talked aloud and found out the way in the first attempt. Though the level of this game must have been easy. But the fact that we did it very fast, probably within 10 seconds surprises me more. There is a science behind it. Our words make us focus more on the subject or rather concentrate more on the solutions. Ditto with the stage performers, they engage their audience very well because they can strike a conversation with themselves also.
    Great read. Thank you for such post with an example (the game).

  8. I am grateful to have read this article about autelic personalities (Chapter 9: Autotelic Personality / Nicola Baumann / University of Trier) (it has 27 pages)

  9. This is hysterical: Tonight, I was watching the second game of the NHL Eastern Conference Finals, rooting for the Pens to take down the Senators. Right winger Phil Kessel’s, shall we say, impassioned behavior has been making headlines just hours after the game, and that made me think of this article. You wouldn’t know it from interviews with him, but this guy gets fired up on the ice, having enraged conversations with himself – at one point, he’s having a row with no one in particular as he sits on the bench, and teammate Chris Kunitz is obviously laughing about it. In all, he was evidently frustrated with the Senators’ plays, which made it very difficult for anyone to score goals. You can even see him stamping his feet as he returns to the bench at one point. I haven’t been watching hockey very long, but I’ve never seen him go _this_ far over the top. I never even knew he did this sort of thing before.

    His behavior has been described as somewhat immature, to put it lightly. To the critics, I say, say what you will – Kessel became the only one to score at all tonight, scoring the sole goal of the entire game late into the final period. Maybe he’s on to something?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get the (Free) Practice Hacks Guide

Learn the #1 thing that top practicers do differently, plus 7 other strategies for practice that sticks.

Do you know your mental strengths and weaknesses?

If performances have been frustratingly inconsistent, try the 4-min Mental Skills Audit. It won't tell you what Harry Potter character you are, but it will point you in the direction of some new practice hacks that could help you level up.

Share747
Tweet
Email