According to Lee, a lot of the things or rather most of the things that the martial arts schools teach are rather useless to their students. Some of that being practicing the horse stances, kicks, punches, etc. The reason this is useless is because it has no function in a fight because the student would not know how to use them in such a confrontation.
Bernhard says that learning these techniques outside of the purpose of self-defense is the logical way of teacher - useful for the teacher, useless for the student.
Lee says that teaching techniques in actual situations is the best way since it shows the student what he can do in such a situation to defend himself. This is the pragmatic approach to teaching which is the primary way we learn.
So what this means in piano teaching is that considering the tradition of teaching in logical steps which are initially meaningless to the student is not the effective method. But teaching pragmatically, showing the student how to play scales, chords, arpeggios, etc., as they confront these challenges in a piece are an effective means of teaching.
But teachers do not teach pragmatically. Consider even how school is taught. It is taught in the manner most efficient for them to get their paycheck. This logical approach to teaching a student will mean that if a student lags behind because he could not understand a step, he will forever be lagging behind because the step has already been 'taught' and will be expected to be applied.
Students in schools, at least the ones I've been to, have asked teachers repeatedly this question: "What does this have to do with anything? I'm never going to use it." They're probably right at least 95% of the time. The teachers in highschool don't have a good reason why they should learn math or history or even how to write. They reply: "It's better for your future. When you are older, you'll understand. It will help you get into a good college."
College teachers seem to be more forthcoming. They usually don't bull-flower: "You won't use 95% of the stuff you learn in school." Or they may start bashing high-school about how horrible a job they did teaching things that are not accurate or even true, especially in the area of history.
But even in college, they teach in the same manner as highschool was taught. The only thing interesting is that now that the student is more at an age in which they will soon be entering the workforce (and making, hopefully, lots of money) they pay attention more. That degree means something - a larger paycheck compared to someone without a degree. Money is what motivates students to get that degree, even perhaps learn something. But actually learning something is still not something students want to do. Students often cheat on exams to pass the class and barely do any learning. They will eventually get a degree which supposedly certifies they know ''something". And when they do enter the workforce in the area of their choosing, they will be ill-prepared. And since they cannot cheat at work - they will be immediately found out they know little - they have to get by somehow. But wait! He remembers that he won't use 95% of the things he learned in school. Alas, he is saved from his knowing little. He only has to use that 5% he learned and he will get by on that 5%. That 5% is what will give him the large paycheck. Ah, he's living the good life.
So what does this have to do with piano lessons and teaching? This was posted in the teaching forum and perhaps a criticism of how piano teachers teach.
My teacher, for the most part, teaches using the logical method. I've had to learn and relearn certain scales and arpeggios simply because I can't remember them because those 'exercises' bare little to the piece I am learning. I'm not taking any ABRSM exams nor do I intend to so what is the point of knowing a bunch of scales and arpeggios that does not relate to what I'm currently learning?
And what about learning those 'exercises' like Czerny or Hanon? She hasn't assigned me any Hanon even though I have the book (it was bought when my sister was taking lessons). But she has assigned me Czerny. Many times. I did not know the relevance of learning Czerny a year ago. I still don't yet she still assigns me them. Do I practice them? Yes. Do they mean anything to what I'm currently learning? Perhaps less than 5% of the technical abilities I learn in Czerny I actually use.
She says: "It will help you play Beethoven's sonatas." I did tell her that I really liked Beethoven's sonatas. That was a year ago when he was my favourite composer. Not true any longer. It's now Alkan. He's a completely different composer and now those exercises really mean very little. And I have no intention of learning Beethoven's sonatas anytime soon, except to finish the last movement of his Op.27-2. Which of Czerny's exercises will help me with that last movement?
I'm sure many of you teachers teach using the logical method. Why? Because this is how you were taught. My sister now teaches a couple of students at a music store once a week. She teaches using the logical method. Hanon? You bet! I don't talk to her very much about her teaching methodology. Should I? For her students' benefit, yes, I probably should. But that's just arrogance, right? But I'm an arrogant person concerning things I know more about. I analyze everything. She does not. And many of those piano teachers are like her, am I right? Do you not assign your students Czerny and Hanon just 'because' even though it has little bearing on the pieces they are learning? I'm sure you do. Mine does. My sister does. Anyone else want to raise their hand?
"Liberate yourself."
fD_S.F.