Strict vs Lax teachers

[Spatula]

Which teaching style do you prefer?  SUPER STRICT teaching where you force your kids to count every bloody beat, or Lax and laze around for 45 minutes or an hour and say...Jolly good, you've come a long way, even though they practiced 5 minutes in total throughout the whole week?

I know these are extremes, but I'd lean towards the strict side, minus being super anal over every thing.  I leave the kids some room to breath and let them do they're own interpretations as long as its not "neo-piano", if you get my drift.

[faulty_damper]

I know these are extremes, but I'd lean towards the strict side, minus being super anal over every thing.

Now you're contradicting yourself.  He can't be super strict but not be anal over everything.  Do you mean only on the outside extremes but not totally on the edge?

I prefer a teacher who are in the mean plus or minus .7 deviations from the standard curve.  Preferably slightly more strict.  Being strict is often associated with compelling the student to excell.  I prefer this methodoly than to being lax, which is often associated with not caring about the student.

But how about something different:  it depends on the student and how to compel them to study/practice based on their desires, not your own.

[Saturn]

Asking whether it is better to have a far too strict teacher or a far too lax teacher is a lot like asking whether you'd rather have your left foot or your right foot cut off.

It pretty much goes without saying that a teacher who laxes and lazes around is a terrible teacher.  Lazy teachers make for lazy students.  Lazy students never progress.

But being strict can be almost as bad.  If a teacher has a bad method, then strictness will ingrain the bad method into the student's education.  Even if the teacher has good methods, if he is so convinced of the rightness of his teaching that he doesn't adjust to the needs of each student, he's hurting the student.

You just really can't win here.  Usually the problem is not that a teacher is too strict or too lenient, but that the teacher is strict or lenient about the wrong issues.

[rlefebvr]

I don't think it should one or the other. It all depends on the student.
Some students react well to military still teaching. Others need to be held and rocked. A good teacher will be able to read the student and adjust his methods with each student. the idea is to get the most out of each individual student. Any teacher that can't bend is not a great teacher as far as I am concerned. This is true  not only for music, but also for  school, sports and work.

The student must want to learn of course. Does not matter what you do if he does not really want to learn.

I need a combination of both. I need to be put on a strick diet ( :-) ), but all reinforcement must be positive. Any negative energy wiil hurt my progress.

[kulahola]

I am very, very strict except with the students for whom I gave up any hope but I always kick them out at the end.

[Magnus]

Then I got lazy and didnt practise. Now I have a good teacher. He is strict about the music, but he is nice to me and gets me in a good mood. He sometimes tells me stories about composers and pianist. I think that is inspiering and I really learn from him.
So I think a teacher shall be strict. Strictness adapted to each student, but the teacher should not be angry. The teacher should inspire the student.

Thats how I think a teacher should be. Then I mean a teacher that works for me. But I could survive a strict teacher as long as I learn something. (I think)

[kulahola]

why should not a teacher be angry
if the student doesnt do as I say, why should nt i get angry

[bernhard]

A teacher should never be angry in a teaching situation.

Here is why.

If you get angry you cannot think clearly. Your judgement will be severely impaired.

All of your awareness will be directed inside to your feelings of anger, therefore you will not be able to evaluate the effect of your behaviour on the student.

If you are ever involved in a real fight, the worst thing you can do is to get angry with your attacker (even worse than be frightened). Top martial artists will never get angry in a fight for exactly the reasons above.

Having said that, I must also say this. It is very important for a teacher, in a teaching situation to demonstrate anger. To act as if s/he was angry. Because this may be exactly what the student need. Yet on the inside the teacher should completely composed and  cool. In fact a teacher should be able to act and demonstrate externally all the spectrum of human emotions, since there is no guarantee that what will work in a situation will work in every situation.

If what you are doing is not working, try doing something else. But only externally, since if you start to experience internally the emotions you are displaying, you will not be able to ascertain if what you are doing is working or not.

Teachers who believe in being forever cheerful are limiting themselves unnecessarily.

Teachers who give vent to whatever emotions they feel are very inefficient.

Truly brilliant teachers will act in any way the situation calls for externally but will be clinically cool and very observant internally.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Magnus]

Nice Bernhard. I didn't know.

If a teacher got mad at me, even if I deserved it, I would fell sad   maybe I would cry to. Then I would loose all motivation. Example: When I was about 8-10 years old, I swam in a swimmingclub. I had just started a higher level and the swimming teacher got very strict. One day I swam too close the guy in front of me. The teacher said I souldn't do that.
Couple of minutes little later I swam too close again. It was mistake. Then the teacher went bananas and yeld and screamed at me. Then I cried and went home. I continued to swim for a couple of weeks, but he was still angry and mad. Then I quit swimming. Had no motivation.

Btw, when he got angry, it was outbursts.