Four Thinking Styles of Perception/Process

[lostinidlewonder]

Carl Jung observed that some intellectuals think best when handling abstract concepts, while others prefer dealing more directly with their senses, staying close to the impressions of sight and sound, touching, tasting and smelling. Then there are intuitive thinkers who rely on hunches more than abstract reasoning, artists of all kinds are often found in this category. Finally there are those who find emotions are more important than logic, once again a characteristic more likely to be found in  art than in the science.

MIND STYLE        WORKS BEST WITH         HELPFUL FOR
Using intellect     Abstract concepts            Scientists
Sensing              Sensations                      Farmers
Using intuition     Hunches                        Artists
Feeling               Emotions                       Therapists


In practice few people are exclusively one mind style or the other, it depends on circumstances obviously. It is still likely that one style of thinking will feel more natural and be used more effortlessly than the others however.

Dr David Kolb groups Jungs four into two main ways in which the events may be perceived:
1) Through abstraction (intellect, sensing, intuition)
2) Through direct experience (feeling)

Those who favor 1) are defined as abstractors and those 2) feelers. Feelers tend more to the actual experience itself. They perceive through their senses, They are involved. By contrast abstractors perceive at one step removed from their direct sensory experience. Having taken in relevant information from their surroundings, they create a highly abstract model in the mind, and this, rather than the real world, then becomes the focus of their perceptions. In a major human tragedy feelers would be emotionally involved in the plight of the victims, where the abstractors would be approaching it in a more analytical manner finding more general solutions such as transporting supplies to disaster areas.



The second step in thinking is the Processing stage where the information is acted on by the brain. There are two distinct groups, those who respond and those who reflect. Responders are fast to trail and error, give a young child some different shaped blocks to put through different shaped holes and the responders will without hesitation pick up the blocks and try to put them into the different holes. Reflectors however will sit back, think about the shapes and mentally try to solve the problem before attempting it, reflectors like to weigh up the pros and cons.

Combining Perception and Processing together we can generate four main groups of thought.

-Percieve: Feeling     Process: Reflective    = Involved Thinker.
-Percieve: Abstract    Process: Reflective    = Intellectual Thinker.
-Percieve: Abstract    Process: Responder     = Implementing Thinker.
-Percieve: Feeling     Process: Responder     = Inventive Thinker.


Definitions of the Four group combination of perception/processing.

Involved Thinker:
The mind style of people who perceive by feeling and emotionally observing the information, on which they then carefully reflect before proceeding. These type of thinkers search for the meanings in the world around them and are most interested in WHY questions. Sociable and cooperative who get deeply involved in anything that catches their attention and they are more interested in people than theories or objects.

Intellectual Thinker:
Objective, rational, logical and factual, often assertive and emotionally controlled. Interested in WHAT questions. These kind of thinkers do best in school and university. Although they only consist of about 25% of students, they do well with abstract and reflective subjects of which science and maths are heavily based upon.

Implementing Thinker:
Energetic doers rather than deep thinkers, prefer immediate action rather than lengngthy introspection. They have an urge to put ideas into practice as swiftly as possible. The best theory in the world is valueless unless it has immediate practical application. Dislike rules and authority figures and being handed answers on a plate, think most sucesfully when able to get hands-on experience. Interested in HOW questions.

Inventive Thinker:
Remain close in touch with their physical sensations. Unlike involved thinkers however they process by responding rather than through reflection reacting to intellectual challenges with more speed than thought. Enjoy change and variety, willing to take risks. Parents and teachers might often consider these children as over impulsive and insufficiently thoughtful. Of all four mind styles inventive thinkers fare the worst in formal education and are least popular with teachers teaching academic subjects. Give an inventive child a plastic model they will not read the instructions but rather prefer pushing parts that might fit together being satisfied with the end result even if it is not what it should be if one followed the instructions.





There is a problem with how we have taught as a whole over the years. Institutions do not take into consideration what is the best method to teach the individual student. For the intellectual thinkers this is not a problem but for the other mind styles it can certainly be.  The way education has long been organised can be likened to an athletics event where all competitors no matter what their disciple is must compete in the 100m sprint.  Every competitor no matter what the body build, physical skills, is obliged to run the race. Those who do well are rewarded and those who do not are penalized and made to feel utter failures, despite the fact that it is the rules of the game rather than their own inadequacy that are responsible for that result.

It is important to realize that all mind styles are equally valid and given the right teaching and encouragement children can learn to become flexible thinkers, perceiving and processing information a way best suited to each circumstance.

https://changingminds.org/explanations/learning/kolb_learning.htm

[fenz]

thanks for sharing 

[m1469]

I both agree and disagree, in a tremendous fashion ... while wearing a lovely dress, a huge hat, running shoes, and drinking coffee.  

Perhaps you would get answers that are more fitting should you ask a more concise question  .  Okay, actually, I only said that because it's been something that other people have replied with to posters over the years.  I wanted to give it a little whirl to see what it's like.  It can seem a bit smug  , and, in fact, wasn't truly fulfilling for me to say  .


*flogs herself*

[lostinidlewonder]

I guess questions we could draw out of this is how is this related to teaching piano or music as a whole?

I find that when we teach music there are certain disciplines which are easier for a particular student to grasp than others. If we consider the three types of memory we have in music, which I group as Conscious (sight reading, musical theory, observing pattern etc), Muscular (the feeling of playing a group of notes with single physical action)  and Sound (Musical expression, listening to ones self etc)  memory, we can see how certain mind types work better with these memory functions by comparison to others.

Briefly, the "intellectual mind" deals with conscious memory issues with ease,they also can percieve the other memory issues abstractly which makes them often the most flexible students to teach.

"Implimental minds" tend to enjoy general approaches and being guided to an answer rather than solving issues for them, pushing towards answers rather than forcing them works better. If I were to teach this mind type I would ensure that I am constantly asking them questions rather than giving answers. They like to be asked questions but not necessarily generate them for the teacher. I find these type of students work well with muscular memory issues, they like to get hands on experience asap without caution.

The "Inventive mind" is quite similar however they like to take charge of the what they do more so, you cannot tell them what to do, I found this quite common with students I taught with asperges, they have a system that they prefer and do not want to stray from their own method. I also currently teach one student who is really an inventor, he pulls apart electrical equipment and builds things out of them, in piano he behaves quite the same, enjoying to experiment with actions and exploring issues himself, during the lesson I have to help direct his explorations without telling him how to exactly do things, I may demonstrate to him how it might be done easier but do not impose that he achieve or struggle to do it that way. I need to let them do things in their own way predominantly. You need to praise their ideas and ask questions whether their approach might have improvements rather than trying to make changes to their methods directly. They like to generate the questions and explore them with the teacher. These students are very heavily involved in muscular memory but the conscious memory also is a main focus as well since they like to consider different ways in using the standard information.

The "involved mind" tends to be quite emotional when it comes to playing. They can easily get frustrated and angry when things get difficult, they also can look at other peoples progress and think more or less of themselves. They also yearn for appreciation for what they do. They like to know how the teacher does things or how other people do things and then relate that to how they do things. They like to learn like a parrot sometimes, mimicing what they appreciate in other peoples efforts.  I find they excel in appreciating sound quality and emotion in music.

I am sure we can generate some other mind types, what do you think they could be? What type of mind types have you come across in your own teaching? Perhaps you may not really know how to lable a mind type but you can certainly describe how some students think differently and approach problems in different manners. How have you changed your approach in teaching these type of students based on the way in which they percieve and process certain information? Of course a student is usually not exclusively one mind type or the other but certainly we can pick up on what type(s) of thinking works best for them.

[m1469]

I will have to actually study your posts a little bit more and ponder my students a bit more to really make the connections and be capable of a more in-depth response.  I've been actually thinking about it more and more since you first posted it, and what has needed to change in my own mind, first of all, has been just developing more of an openness to the kind of mind and thinking who likes to think like you posted about  .  

I guess my first reaction is that I've been aware for awhile of the whole idea of different learning types, and while I myself realize that there are some particular ways that I feel I learn well or enjoy quite a bit, I also think that there's an element of "learning types" being the 'in' kind of educational and psychological thinking, at the time.  Along with that, though it can be helpful to think about our learning styles, I also feel that anytime we put people in boxes, we have to be extremely careful that we're not actually going to end up limiting them by deciding what their strengths are and then forgetting about the rest or forgetting about exploring other avenues if something's not working the way people think it should.

I think I'll have to leave it at that for now.  I think this is worth exploring and I'm inevitably going to have more thoughts and opinions ... hee hee.  

[m1469]

I actually have a LOT of thoughts on this, but they will only come out little by little.  One of the next thoughts that seems most pertinent is that, to some respect, it depends on the goal of the student/learning/teaching.  If all a person wants is a hobby, then sure, teach to their strengths and let them just enjoy themselves to whatever extent that allows.  But, even the best pianists in the world could consider themselves students, still, if they feel there is still more to be learning.  At some point, I think we have to concede that if we truly want to live out our potential, we can't afford to rely upon our strengths alone, but must also make considerable progress in areas that have, by comparison, seemed to be weaker.  We have to develop more fully in all ways.  That is certainly not a choice that everybody intentionally makes, let alone over something like the piano.  There is obviously, or at least ideally, an art involved in developing in these ways, and interestingly enough, that is reflected in the art that we are able to create at the instrument.

I also think there is more to us as individuals than science and psychology will ever depict with "mind types".  That doesn't mean there aren't any uses for it at all, but sometimes it may not be in the ways we would tend to think of it.

[faulty_damper]

One of the problems of such descriptions of personality types is that it's only descriptive; it says nothing about how a person arrives to possess such behaviors.  Behaviors are both innate and learned.  Innate behaviors express themselves regardless of environment (shyness, aggressiveness, promiscuity, etc.) while learned behaviors express themselves within specific environments (such as learning the English language in the United States, violence in gang infested areas, homophobia, etc.)

There are specific patterns of learning that bring about the aforementioned "mind styles."  It is almost useless to discuss them without knowing how these patterns of thought came about.  All people learn these "mind styles" because they are a requirement for modern life, however, depending on environmental influences, certain behaviors are expressed more than others.

While Jung was able to categorize these behaviors (the ability to categorize/sort/group ideas is a requirement for abstract thought) it would be a mistake to assume these descriptions are static.  It would be a further mistake to assume that learning styles of such styles are different than everyone else; they are not, e.g. Gardner's "theory of multiple intelligences."  (It's not really a theory because it does not pass scientific qualifications.)

[loops]

well, if you look at what I do in my day job, you would say, "intellectual thinker" through and through, but in fact I rely strongly on intuition as well as logic in order to succeed.

When it comes to piano though, I have a completely different approach. This is deliberate because if it were like my day job I'd give it up -- the whole point is to develop the undeveloped and explore new things. To be honest, I don't see how I am learning to play the piano described in this list, the closest might be the the physical enjoyment of the actual act of playing.  (My current active repertoire: Mozart K332, some Chopin and some Brahms.)

[lostinidlewonder]

One of the problems of such descriptions of personality types is that it's only descriptive; it says nothing about how a person arrives to possess such behaviors.  Behaviors are both innate and learned....

I am sure one could look at how you where brought up and your education etc which will certainly effect the mind types that you are more proficient at. With most of us we are all the mind types and use all of them simultaneously when we learn. Certain actions favor particular mind types over others and as a matter of learning efficiency it might be important to take notice of this. Categorizing what we learn in terms of the thinking styles is a helpful tool to guide us towards where our strengths and weaknesses lie.

The main purpose of the mind type classification I believe is to realize which type of thinking style(s) you use for a given task. It is important to notice the types of thinking there is both as a teacher and student, more importantly as a teacher who would find it beneficial to their teaching if they measure the students thinking type(s) being used and know which ones needs improvement and which one is a strength.

How one thinks in terms of these mind types depends on the task. With regards to piano there are many tasks related to learning the instrument each one which has a relationship associated with the particular mind types. So to understand how one comes about thinking in the particular mind type one needs to understand how they approach the subject they are studying.

While Jung was able to categorize these behaviors (the ability to categorize/sort/group ideas is a requirement for abstract thought) it would be a mistake to assume these descriptions are static.  It would be a further mistake to assume that learning styles of such styles are different than everyone else; they are not, e.g. Gardner's "theory of multiple intelligences."  (It's not really a theory because it does not pass scientific qualifications.)

Although the descriptions are set how they can be flexibly related to particular tasks makes them valid axioms of learning. Certainly we are using more than one mind type simultaneously for a task but how the combinations work together could yield some interesting control that you might gain over the tasks you undergo. If you are learning a new piano piece for instance and come across a phrase of music where the RH undergoes technical movements you haven't experienced before but the LH contains standard movements for you, then you will notice that when you learn the RH you are applying more of a responsive reaction (Implemental and Inventive) to your challenge. You will reflect on the new technique but because there is little to draw from, you need to experience the movement more thus a responsive action is more desirable. After a few responsive trials you can then start to reflect on the action more and thus move into the other two mind types (Involved and Intellectual). The LH on the other hand because it is a standard movement you merely have to reflect on the movement, feel it in your body and draw from past experience, there is a lesser amount of responsive action because you need to ensure that the combination of notes agrees with your past reflective observation which is a more effective mind type to maintain in this situation. This is a real rough general description but at least you notice that in reality we move between the mind types and also use them simultaneously.

well, if you look at what I do in my day job, you would say, "intellectual thinker" through and through, but in fact I rely strongly on intuition as well as logic in order to succeed.

When it comes to piano though, I have a completely different approach. This is deliberate because if it were like my day job I'd give it up -- the whole point is to develop the undeveloped and explore new things. To be honest, I don't see how I am learning to play the piano described in this list, the closest might be the the physical enjoyment of the actual act of playing.  (My current active repertoire: Mozart K332, some Chopin and some Brahms.)

I think you have highlighted how many of us are flexible thinkers. We also gain more enjoyment from certain tasks because of what type of thinking the task encourages. If piano playing is like diving into the unknown exploring and being surprised with what you find then use this as inspiration for your learning! I love to go digging in 100+ year old abandoned tips, even though I am not a professional archaeologist I take my tools and enjoy searching for treasures! If I was professional about it I would refine my technique, tools etc, but it isn't what I want from the task, I want to simply enjoy doing it and find treasure!

But that isn't to say I haven't created my own technique for digging and sorting through dirt! If you mindlessly do a task you will never improve, so certainly although my main aim from treasure hunting is the enjoyment I undergo the same intellectual thinking that other archaeologists would have undergone to refine my technique and increase my yield.

I teach many students who just want to learn piano for fun or enjoyment but that doesn't mean that we avoid doing hard work. And the student is more happy if they learn to teach themselves successfully rather than having the teacher do it for them. So even if you are learning piano for enjoyment or more seriously, both aim to refine their learning craft. Thus ensuring that you are using flexible thinking when approaching problems because although the tools you are used to use work well, you may increase your efficiency of learning if you notice how to use other thinking styles and why they may seem easier or more difficult for you to use.

[keypeg]

I remember reading this thread when it first came up, and was reminded about it again today.  My reaction is mixed today as it was then.  I like the idea of different learning styles and approaches to things.  The packaging into "types" makes me uncomfortable.  I have been exposed several times to teachers who did look for "type" quite literally, and then they respond not to the student but to the model that their studies say that student is.  I.e. if Type C say "herumph" then it means he is thinking X, so we will respond to this X.  It destroys communication and makes the student disappear because only the "type" is seen.  A bit along the same vein, as teacher I have tutored individual students from time to time, where I was able to help the student rather quickly by listening to, and observing the student with an open and flexible mind.  Often the student came with some kind of label attached.  If you keep your pedagogic knowledge and knowledge of the subject by your side, but openly really "hear" the student in a looser way, you'll get much further.

If these studies will lead to more flexible and open education, then that is a good thing.  If it leads to more formulas and routines, then it is less good.

Personally I cannot identify with any of them in regards to music.  I will absorb things and reflect on them before acting.  I will also be spontaneous and immediate.  Music is a type of knowledge that sometimes comes as a whole package but if you take it apart you can find a lot of intellectual matter behind it.  If studied, those formal things become apparent, but then they also relate to what you feel.  Music is sound.  For me it is also extremely tactile - since childhood I have responded to how things vibrate and feel.

In addition to figuring things out, there is also suddenly just sensing that something is there, but not having a name for it yet.  Later you will find out that it has a name and people use it in music and know about it.  The hardest thing for me as an adult student was when music was simplified to make it "easier", or things were withheld from me so I wouldn't get "confused".  What happened to me is that my instincts pulled me one way, but the instructions or written music pulled me the other.  Between the two, I was almost paralyzed.  One example in piano music was with a piece that had been a jaunty polyphonic ballad, and was turned into a slow romantic melody with chords.  I sensed the polyphony which would weave and break off abruptly, and I sensed the original rhythms, but was trying to follow the romantic sweeps and dynamics, and the "largo" that had been edited into the music as instruction.  If I had known that the music was distorted then I could have sorted out what was pulling at me, and played the piece (with some sense of distaste).

I'm not sure that this side was described in that article.  We know that young children learn to walk and talk in stages, and they seem to know just what to pursue at which time, and when they are ready.  There is also an inner voice at work, unless we quash it in our eagerness to "educate" with too much interference.  Is that in the article?

[charliefreak]

This thread reminded me of an article I saw recently on NPR.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/29/139973743/think-youre-an-auditory-or-visual-learner-scientists-say-its-unlikely

[keypeg]

I read the article.  Maybe those psychologists should leave the teaching up to teaching.  Or, get into the classroom, gain some experience dealing with real people over a longer period instead of experimental subjects in artificial trials.  I don't know if there is a whole industry geared to this.  When you teach young students, you show them, you tell them, and they act it out.  That doesn't require any kind of industry.  The human voice, colored chalk, and moving bodies does the trick.  Most of us are born with five working senses, with which we perceive and interact with the world.  We gather ideas from our experiences and not just through thoughts.  It is odd that the idea that we use different senses should even be the object of studies.  How else can it be?  If we stay human, then the reaction to the people we teach will tell us what they respond to.  Can someone "testing" people in experiments really be communicating with them?

[timothy42b]

I might not agree with the particular four styles presented earlier.

But there are quite a number of systems out there designed to do somewhat the same thing, make tailoring communication to the individual easier.

Just to give a few examples:

Situational leadership taught a quadrant of four types.  People are divided based on high or low competence and committment, and you were supposed to tailor your style of managing based on what they needed.  The low competence low maturity type needed to be told very directly exactly what to do, while the high competence high maturity needed to be turned loose to perform.  I found this a good starting point when I was first a supervisor many years (decades, I guess) ago. 

Most people are familiar with the Meyer-Briggs inventory, which I think ends up with 16 types.  (It's been a while.)  It's a pretty good test in terms of psychometric validity.  If you're aware of your own style and the limitations it imposes, and the student's style, you might be able to communicate better.

The neurolinguistic programmer (NLP) people divided communication modes into visual, auditory, and tactile, and thought that for maximum communication you should adjust to whatever mode the other person was in at that moment.  Of course, that required you to pay attention in real time, not an easy task.  I think there was some training involved, probably expensive training.  <g>

I suspect a slavish adoption of any of these systems would fail with some students.  On the other hand, one-size-fits-all teaching probably fails at a far larger percentage (and succeeds wondrously with those students who happen to fit.) 

Ideally you treat your student as an individual and choose precisely the approach needed.  But then teacher may have a preferred style that may prevent such choices. 

On the other hand, if a student is squarely in the center of one of those categories, statistically you are probably much better off using the standard approach than trying to outguess it. 

[Bob]

"I don't know if there is a whole industry geared to this."

Yes.  The people who write books and go around promoting one idea.  They speak at conferences and do in-school seminars.  It gives teachers (thinking public school) something to do.  Makes principals and school boards happy.  Everyone is productive... But nothing really changes.  Things get forgotten after a few years.  Then they add some new research and take a different, probably reactionary, approach, and everything is new again.  New speakers come out, sell books, stir things up.  Everyone gets busy and things will change again... But they don't.  There is a market that way though.

[keypeg]

Gotcha.  But teachers  can continue teaching, regardless of what the industry thinks it's doing.

[timothy42b]

Yes.  The people who write books and go around promoting one idea. 

. But nothing really changes. 

Bob,
I think you're both right and wrong.
The self improvement market would obviously self destruct if any of it worked.  They hook you and you buy more, and more, always one book or program from getting your act together.

However, the master teacher really does assimilate and use these ideas, and improves over time.  For the rest, "good enough is good enough." 

[lostinidlewonder]

... The packaging into "types" makes me uncomfortable.  I have been exposed several times to teachers who did look for "type" quite literally, and then they respond not to the student but to the model that their studies say that student is.

I feel that although the styles of thinking are categorized into groups they can be used simultaneously, they do not need to be used in isolation. It might be simply interesting to notice which type of learning you are using and which type of learning skills a student might be more or less proficient with. But we certainly are mostly flexible thinkers, moving in between categories constantly and utilizing them at different simultaneous intensities for a given task. But these general categorizations act as clearly distinguishable types of thought of which we may borrow parts of to create a unique personalized way in which we process/absorb and make practical use of knowledge.

I find in schools for example generally most students need to be academically minded and be able to deal with abstract concepts within their head instead of actual real life application. This sets up a  situation where certain students miss out on effective learning because their need "hands on" type experience is overpowered by abstraction. In piano learning for instance certain students would benefit much greater being able to practically test out ideas instead of too much abstract thought put in before doing it. Some students however work much better putting a lot of abstract thought into their actions before making their attempts at trail and error. This is only one small situation and it would be too lengthy to describe more examples but one can see that when tutoring students individually it may be important to know what the most effective way for them to learn in a given situation is.

As a teacher I do not tag a student as being one mind type or the other but I am instead aware of the many ways in which one might approach a given problem. Some teachers fall  into a singular way in which they transfer knowledge to their students, it might be good for these teachers to add to their teaching skills and become aware how different minds might approach a given problem.

Personally I cannot identify with any of them in regards to music.  

I will absorb things and reflect on them before acting.  I will also be spontaneous and immediate.  Music is a type of knowledge that sometimes comes as a whole package but if you take it apart you can find a lot of intellectual matter behind it.  If studied, those formal things become apparent, but then they also relate to what you feel.  Music is sound.  For me it is also extremely tactile - since childhood I have responded to how things vibrate and feel.

I think you are aware that you are a flexible thinker, which most of us are. But there are certain types of learning that we find easier to do than others, or perhaps simply more stimulating. We may also notice which ones are of failure and focusing on improvements in these areas may overall improve our learning on a macroscopic level. I find this obvious when I teach young students 3-5 where they are constantly learning new ways of dealing with information for the first time for older students it is usually a much more gradual process.

I'm not sure that this side was described in that article.  We know that young children learn to walk and talk in stages, and they seem to know just what to pursue at which time, and when they are ready.  There is also an inner voice at work, unless we quash it in our eagerness to "educate" with too much interference.  Is that in the article?

A good teacher asks pertinent questions which causes a student to react to solve their own challenges (we never simply give them answers but we move them towards an improvement and shape what they have). Finding the right question often requires a good idea as to how the individual student thinks and processes information. A teacher must make inferences as to how their student thinks, if they do not then finding the critical questions just becomes a hit and miss affair or delegated to merely a one dimensional teaching formula. It is in my mind as a teacher not putting a student into a box or labeling them if I make decisions as to how they are thinking. If I do not then I would simply teach them without any regard to who they are.

The self improvement market would obviously self destruct if any of it worked.  They hook you and you buy more, and more, always one book or program from getting your act together.

I think many people want to be able to think outside of their box and the self improvement industry certainly has helped many on that path. There are certainly better books than others just like not everything written for piano is a masterpiece. I have met many rich businessmen and women alike who extrude motivational and dream/goal teachings. Many of them have shared with me that what they learned in this field has been invaluable in their journey and has certainly helped them to get them where they are today. I understand your cynical perspective however as I have taught certain students who do have the right way to think but have no motivation or persistence to put it into practical use.

[keypeg]

I find in schools for example generally most students need to be academically minded and be able to deal with abstract concepts within their head instead of actual real life application. This sets up a  situation where certain students miss out on effective learning because their need "hands on" type experience is overpowered by abstraction.

I don't think that I see it that way.  First off, abstract learning should be preceded by something that is more real.  Take algebra for example.  When I tutored students having problems with algebra, we often traced it down to never having understood the most basic concepts behind arithmetic.  They had memorized their addition facts and times tables, and given the right answers, but had never truly grasped the concepts.  When you say 2 + 3 = 5 then you are seeing 2 things, another 3 things, and both of these groups being joined together.  If you can picture this, then 2 + x = 5 and 5 - 2 = x make sense.

Unfortunately our school systems often dwell on the regurgitation of facts without real understanding or engagement, and the use of big words creates an illusion of knowledge.  This is a failure of our academic system.  I am inclined to think that all students need the real side to things and that academic thinking can be empty without some reality added to it.

In piano learning for instance certain students would benefit much greater being able to practically test out ideas instead of too much abstract thought put in before doing it. Some students however work much better putting a lot of abstract thought into their actions before making their attempts at trail and error. This is only one small situation and it would be too lengthy to describe more examples but one can see that when tutoring students individually it may be important to know what the most effective way for them to learn in a given situation is.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense.

Some teachers fall  into a singular way in which they transfer knowledge to their students, it might be good for these teachers to add to their teaching skills and become aware how different minds might approach a given problem.

Absolutely!

A good teacher asks pertinent questions which causes a student to react to solve their own challenges (we never simply give them answers but we move them towards an improvement and shape what they have). Finding the right question often requires a good idea as to how the individual student thinks and processes information.

I have to think about that one.  I have always been full of questions, and at times have been close to something and wanted to push all the way through to an answer.  I would want an answer or information, not more questions.  Because I am that way, I think that I have tended to engage students in dialogue in one-on-one tutoring rather than asking them questions.  It was more like being intrigued by the subject, and them catching the sense of being intrigued, and becoming curious themselves.  Maybe this led to them coming up with the questions.  But the element of being in tune with the student and gearing yourself to him or her was definitely there.

 

. It is in my mind as a teacher not putting a student into a box or labeling them if I make decisions as to how they are thinking. If I do not then I would simply teach them without any regard to who they are.

Agreed.

[timothy42b]

I find in schools for example generally most students need to be academically minded and be able to deal with abstract concepts within their head instead of actual real life application. This sets up a  situation where certain students miss out on effective learning because their need "hands on" type experience is overpowered by abstraction. In piano learning for instance certain students would benefit much greater being able to practically test out ideas instead of too much abstract thought put in before doing it.

I mostly agree with your post.

This paragraph brings to mind something I've noticed repeatedly.  It's kind of a pet peeve of mine;  I try to avoid it myself but I'm sure I don't always succeed. 

When you're explaining something, you're talking.  And when you're talking, the student is not learning.  (for the most part)  They don't learn until they get the chance to try what you just told them, and the longer you talk the more the opportunity erodes. 

But also when you're talking, it is very hard to pay attention and know what the student is experiencing.  Your attention is distracted by your internal processes.  I've watched teachers explain something well, then totally blow it by continuing to explain long after they've lost the student, and of course completely unaware.

When it comes to speech, less is more.  The most effective and most painful way to improve as a teacher is to video your session and watch it critically, preferably with an experienced colleague or coach. 

I found this article useful:
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande

[nyiregyhazi]

In piano learning for instance certain students would benefit much greater being able to practically test out ideas instead of too much abstract thought put in before doing it. Some students however work much better putting a lot of abstract thought into their actions before making their attempts at trail and error.

I'm skeptical here. If the former were truly the case, I think we'd be either be looking at a remarkable savant or someone who ALREADY did the abstract thought to prepare themself. You can't just throw your hands down and have any success with a passage unless you have conceived the notes that are to be played and various other issues. The only issue I can see here is whether a student's abstract thinking triggers a feedback loop in the brain that instantly translates an abstracted concept of the notes into a practical onem whereas the "thinking" student has less rapid ability to transform their abstracted concept into a series of practical movement.

The problem with this kind of analysis is that it is frequently the case that those who supposedly don't need to stop and think have actually mastered the art of thinking and digesting very rapidly, whereas those who supposedly overthink actually UNDERTHINK- and need to learn more effective and rapid ways to fully digest and absorb information. The surface can easily be misleading.

When it comes to those who work best from launching straight in, I think the only way to describe it would be to speak of 'talent'. Anyone who works effectively this way is processing the thinking quicker. Otherwise, they would be all over the place with this approach. You can't guess your way to success. Nobody is that lucky. You can only be quicker at processing information.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't think that I see it that way.  First off, abstract learning should be preceded by something that is more real.  Take algebra for example.  When I tutored students having problems with algebra, we often traced it down to never having understood the most basic concepts behind arithmetic.  They had memorized their addition facts and times tables, and given the right answers, but had never truly grasped the concepts.  When you say 2 + 3 = 5 then you are seeing 2 things, another 3 things, and both of these groups being joined together.  If you can picture this, then 2 + x = 5 and 5 - 2 = x make sense.

I can't say I'm convinced by the logic here. This shows a LACK of abstract thought to me- not an excess. Memorising things involves no real thought at at all. Perhaps the early stages ought to involve a lot more practical association, in a way that sets up the ability to translate into abstract thought. But the fact that the most basic of algebra can be translated into something practical is misleading. Just a handful of steps up (including something as basic as squaring x) and you cannot visualise something in practise, unless you've already solved the equation. What you CAN do is understand that each side of the equation features the same number- and that any steps affecting one side must also affect the other. If you cannot get beyond a need to directly visualise specific details in a practical context (rather than in an abstract form through which to process information, before finally getting a practical result), algebra will be a dead-end anyway. I don't see the point in trying to do something in a way that has no value at all beyond elementary level. It's far easier to appreciate that both sides must have the same actions performed on them than to visualise x early on- when the whole point of even mildly more complex algebra is that you CANNOT visualise x until you have been through a series of steps that will unmask it. To be honest, the logic of the two equations you presented didn't instantly make sense to me- because you flipped the sides of the equations over. It actually masked the logic at first. I believe you're describing a common sense approach rather than a stricter algebraic one, but the purpose of algebra is specifically for situations where common sense doesn't work. That's why it's best taught in terms of keeping the sides balanced, by performing the same steps to both sides. You can convince a person that algebra has a practical use, by relating it to quantities of oranges, but if they need this way of thinking to perform calculations, they are getting lost in the very antithesis of the thinking that makes algebra work. Algebra works by because you don't need to imagine x until it has told you what it is.

Even an abacus involves abstract thought. You don't keep adding 1 by 1. You represent tens or hundreds with a single bead. Simply to do your ten times table you have to go beyond real life oranges. You can't keep adding ten oranges to a heap. Even by the time you have twenty, you cannot conceive it as one heap of twenty oranges. You either have to count them one by one, or have the ability to trust in the concept of twenty amounting to two (more easily visualised) tens.

As I say, perhaps stage one should be done more practically, but it's the ability of a student to go from something immediately visible to something that they must visualise and learn logical methods for that determines how far they can go. If they cannot make this step, there's an inherent limit to how far they can succeed.  Arguably, you'd have to say that there is where intelligence lies. Those who are intelligent can make this step most easily. Supposedly "visual learners" can forget going anywhere remotely advanced- unless visual learning is used as a mere stepping stone. If you cannot go on to process things internally, you cannot go far. It's all very well teaching some students visually to start with, but you cannot say a person is a "visual learner" and hope to teach quadratic equations with oranges. An intelligent person must translate the tangible into abstract thought very early on, or they will never be able to deal in anything beyond the most basic arithmetic.

[keypeg]

I found this article useful:
https://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande

This is the most useful thing that I have read in a decade.

[keypeg]

I can't say I'm convinced by the logic here. This shows a LACK of abstract thought to me- not an excess. Memorising things involves no real thought at at all. Perhaps the early stages ought to involve a lot more practical association, in a way that sets up the ability to translate into abstract thought.

That is exactly my point.  Schools "teach" abstractly in a memorizing way without linking to anything real early on, and then they try to build on that vacuum.  So if I get a kid in grade 7 or 8 who is struggling with algebra, I first check whether he understands what multiplication and division means, and if need be, addition and subtraction.  Often they have memorized things, but never grasped what it's about.

In the same way, I imagine that physics begins with preschoolers sliding down slides, throwing sticks and rocks into water, filling containers and pricking balloons that you have blown up so that they burst.  You have a host of physical experiences in the world long before you get to the abstract things.

As I say, perhaps stage one should be done more practically, but it's the ability of a student to go from something immediately visible to something that they must visualise and learn logical methods for that determines how far they can go. If they cannot make this step, there's an inherent limit to how far they can succeed.  Arguably, you'd have to say that there is where intelligence lies.

This is true.  There is an inverse side, however.  If we worship abstract thinking above all, and if we aim toward test results rather than true understanding, then that very first part can be left out.  People can have problems because they have not been given foundations, and are perpetually operating in a vacuum.  If this is the case and if they are given those foundations, then suddenly they are successful in the abstract realm too, because things are meaningful.

[nyiregyhazi]

That is exactly my point.  Schools "teach" abstractly in a memorizing way without linking to anything real early on, and then they try to build on that vacuum.  So if I get a kid in grade 7 or 8 who is struggling with algebra, I first check whether he understands what multiplication and division means, and if need be, addition and subtraction.  Often they have memorized things, but never grasped what it's about.

But that's not a problem of abstract though. It's a problem of no thought. Abstraction is certainly not a negative. It's by abstracting something from numbers of oranges/footballs/sweets that we can perform advanced calculations with ease. The sooner a child gets beyond the need to see something and waste their time counting it, the sooner they can be said to possess actual intelligence. This should be out of the way as early as possible. Personally, I think there's way too much focus on idiotic counting up and down, instead of retaining something from the experience of doing so.

The only way something like 2+4=6 cannot be grasped, is if the child cannot grasp the numbers up to 6. The most basic calculations involving single units should be memorised early on- not repeated over and over with needless counting. With young kids there's too much emphasis on the idiotic approach of adding one at a time- rather than actually learning from the experience of performing such a woefully slow method. The average kid ought be capable of mastering such basic procedures before they even get to school. If they can count to ten, they can already do it- yet time is wasted on performing what amounts to nothing more than counting practise over and over. Some kids will get so lost in the counting that they scarcely even notice the results- that they should be absorbing into abstract knowledge. They just repeat the same senseless method over and over- providing nothing but counting practise. While times tables are drilled to excess, the more important results of basic addition and subtraction do not seem to be methodically imprinted upon children's memories- but are instead achieved by counting methods that treat them as if fools. I find it really odd that multiplications are memorised by chants (even something as obvious as the 5 and 10 times tables) yet basic arithmetic is performed by senseless counting. Personally, I think it's spending too much time in what you can count and not enough abstraction (into what saves you the bother of doing so) that is the problem. Just because you're spending hours counting up sweets doesn't mean that you're learning to translate the results of that into knowing the abstract maths that does it quicker.

[nyiregyhazi]

If this is the case and if they are given those foundations, then suddenly they are successful in the abstract realm too, because things are meaningful.

Sorry, missed this bit before. I think you missed my point- which is that things in the abstract realm are NOT meaningful and neither are they supposed to be. The results they produce, however, can be- which is why abstract thought is so much more valuable than counting up something visible. If I had to do the calculation 100000000001-10000000000, I have no problem saying that the answer is one or picturing that figure. However, I cannot grasp the figures I started with in any meaningful way. Add or subtract two zeros from the initial figures and it means little to me. However, such figures could occur in the real world and be recorded. Logic allows me to perform the calculation and get a meaningful answer. I have to let go of what I can imagine and use something altogether different.

That example is really the tip of iceberg. In algebra, you can deal in unknown quantities for ages, before you have the first clue as to what they are. All it takes is trust. I couldn't give a damn whether a number relates to air pressure, a number of sweets or the volume of ordure in a sewer. It doesn't matter. Even if I do something as basic as 5+8 pies, I don't think for a moment about what five or eight pies are like in the real world. Who cares? It's only when I get to my result of 13 that I ask myself whether 13 pies are enough to feed a given number of people. And supposing there were 13 people, I wouldn't even do that. The extent of my visualisation of something worldly is one person with one pie. Why waste time imagining 13 of the things? I do the calculation first and associate with something tangible and meaningful later. Elsewhere, I trust that symbols will perform their task for me. I have no interest in specifically what 5 or 8 pies look like, only whether 13 are enough for one each. Even a five year old who has been taught how to think intelligently should immediately know it's a yes. A person who needs to imagine 13 people and 13 pies being lined up (rather than recognise the obvious match) still has work on his hands.

The only thing a kid needs is to be able to visualise what root numbers look like up to about twenty or so. This simply isn't difficult. Hardly anything depends on actual association to something tangible. All the rest takes is TRUST that there is a purpose to the process of crunching them (eg checking that every person has one pie each) and the intelligence to crunch them. The longer a person has to depend on associating to something tangible, the less likely they are to develop any real intelligence. Perhaps this sounds harsh, but those who cannot develop the ability to perform abstractions are not mathematically intelligent. Maths is about letting go of transparent associations to the real world, in order to perform tasks that cannot be done in individually visible units. Once you can count and imagine numbers, most of the rest of it is about learning to trust abstractions, without needing anything else to grab hold of.

[timothy42b]

Dunno what you do for a living.

For the engineer, math is not abstract and not dissociated with reality.  There is one-to-one correspondence with reality, in both directions. 

That is the reason for the process of engineering education.  There is no real need to start every subject with the derivations.  They are not part of the educating process but of the convincing process.  For most people, mathematical operations remain somewhat abstract and theoretical;  this is fundamentally different from how an engineer sees the world.

Piano lessons, on the other hand..............the less abstraction the better, especially with the younger.  Abstractions lead to words, and words lead to tuning out.

[timothy42b]

This is the most useful thing that I have read in a decade.

I found it not only useful and fascinating, but incredibly encouraging. 

It makes the point that even at the age of some of us oldtimers here, we can still grow and improve.

But not if we are satisfied with "good enough." 

[nyiregyhazi]

Dunno what you do for a living.

For the engineer, math is not abstract and not dissociated with reality.  There is one-to-one correspondence with reality, in both directions.  

My point is that you regularly dissociate for the purpose of a calculation. Half way through a calculation, the present value may mean nothing that relates to anything- for example squaring a variable may be meaningless in itself. However, once you finish the calculation, you bring it back to something real. HOWEVER- even the input values and the output value may have little tangible meaning- except in comparison to other magnitudes. You cannot visualise the mass of huge building in a way that is as meaningful as looking at five balls. You can hold the figure that represents the mass in your head and compare to other masses, but you cannot conceive of that in the same way as you can conceive of seeing five balls side by side as an absolute quantity. People who cannot do things without it staring them in the face cannot do anything advanced. You have to detach yourself from needing to be able to translate every step back to something worldly and just get on with it. This is why I am deeply skeptical about constantly relating maths to counting up of objects. Unless you start memorising the results, you're only reminding yourself how to count. Needing to have real objects staring you in the face is the very thing that intelligent people move away from, at the earliest possible opportunity. As a kid, I remember being baffled by some of the bizarre methods we were supposed to use. As far as I was concerned 6+5=11 and I had no interest in wasting time counting objects before being allowed to say so. I might break it down to 6+4+1, but there was no way I was going do something as deranged as counting up one number at a time, or putting two groups of objects together and then counting them from scratch. Personally, I cannot easily visualise a 6+5 in my head and then count imaginary objects to 11 (nevermind visualising 114+178 or bigger) so I have no idea what value lies in that method. This is what proper maths exists for- so I don't need to do use a cumbersome counting up process (either with real objects or in my head) in order to perform either simple calculations or steps of advanced ones. There are methods that are superior and faster.  

Piano lessons, on the other hand..............the less abstraction the better, especially with the younger.  Abstractions lead to words, and words lead to tuning out.

I disagree. If you teach purely by feel, the student may not be able to capture the feel when they practise. If you teach rational concepts and things to look out for, as well as (not instead of) feel, the student will be able to look out for bad habits and be more likely to have a means of regaining "feel" for themself, during practise. I have a few students with extremely lazy fingers who need extremely clear instructions in this respect. I can teach the "feel" over and over in lessons, but they typically lose it in between. I'm having to provide a number of totally abstracted movement exercises and principles, in order to get them in a position of being able to remind themselves of the "feel" that they need to employ. Part of it is relating it to the sound, but if I only told them to practise loud they'd be nowhere near what they need to be doing.

[keypeg]

Niyereghazi, I have two learned professions.  One of them is teaching.  I ended up (informally) specializing in one-on-one tutoring where students were having problems.  The specific thing that caught my interest is where a student is lacking some fundamental thing, and therefore the advanced things he is doing are all failing.  If you find that fundamental thing, then everything starts pulling together and problems in a pile of areas disappear.

This is a common thing, and I believe that it exists a lot in music.  If this is so, then many people who may seem to "lack aptitude" may actually be suffering from misconceptions, faulty learning, or non-learning in basic things.  It also happens that someone who would have had the right ideas in place has had it taught out of him through faulty teaching.

Where this is an obstacle, and when that obstacle is removed, THEN you can see whether the person actually has aptitude.  If that obstacle doesn't exist then the question is moot.

For you to be given counting blocks when you didn't need them was asinine.  It also goes with the original quote, which is that teaching should match the student.  

[nyiregyhazi]

For you to be given counting blocks when you didn't need them was asinine.  It also goes with the original quote, which is that teaching should match the student.  In a similar way, in my first period of music instruction, some artificial things actually got in the way of what I already understood and confused me because it didn't match what I sensed (correctly).  But these same things were probably very helpful to a lot of students.

The thing is, I can't see any logical explanation of how a counting sweets method can help- UNLESS it leads the student to start memorising key answers. My point is that this method cannot provide anything that contributes to anything more advanced- other than the chance to acquire memory of simple calculations. My problem is that it doesn't seem to be used to encourage that memory at all. It seems much more inclined to get kids stuck in tedious rote-repetition of counting that they can already do- because a woefully basic method is typically given implied priority over LEARNING the results that stem from it. If a kid can understand what numbers up to twenty look like when represented by balls, say, and if they can count up to twenty in order, I cannot see what possible value could ever emerge from counting stuff. They already learned that part. Basic principles of addition and subtraction need to be memorised in abstract form- not calculated over and over by the most inefficient method imaginable. It easily gets kids stuck in having to visualise things that they should not need to visualise and will not be capable of visualising within more advanced work and higher numbers. I think this approach actually breeds limitation.

[timothy42b]

 The specific thing that caught my interest is where a student is lacking some fundamental thing, and therefore the advanced things he is doing are all failing.  If you find that fundamental thing, then everything starts pulling together and problems in a pile of areas disappear.

I think you are right.  I don't think that necessarily advanced skills or concepts are built on fundamental ones - the hierarchy is often unnecessary.  But I do agree that often missing one key element affects many others, and success begins with fixing that element.

Sometimes it can be a unifying principle, but this I think is very specific to the individual.  Some need to understand how it all fits together, others learn better without bothering.

One very neglected skill, IMO, is listening.  We have some kind of hardwired protective brain mechanism that prevents us from hearing our mistakes.  I suspect that one of the skills that separate us from the greats is simply that they learned to hear themselves faster, or maybe even were born without the mechanism. 

[timothy42b]

The thing is, I can't see any logical explanation of how a counting sweets method can help- UNLESS it leads the student to start memorising key answers.

Faulty reasoning.  Your inability to see a reason does not, or should not, lead to the logical conclusion that one cannot exist. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Faulty reasoning.  Your inability to see a reason does not, or should not, lead to the logical conclusion that one cannot exist.  

Well, you're more than welcome to provide one, if one exists. It would be a much stronger argument than implying I spoke unequivocally, where I most certainly did not. I didn't say one cannot exist. I said I cannot see any. By all means bring one to the table if I'm missing something. Also, I find it logically improbable that this style of thinking is important, when it offers no means of conceiving of anything other than the most menial calculations (and very slowly). If someone memorises better from this approach, that's fine. My point is that the memory they acquire (which is not even directly encouraged as part of the method) is the only evident benefit of such work- not the ability to deduce that 4+4=8 by counting 4,5,6,7,8. The method is simply worthless for anything beyond foundation level. If it doesn't build memory of basic sums (which is evidently far more rapid than counting up in ones) I don't see anything else that it can contribute. If it can offer something else, you're welcome to point out what.

[keypeg]

One very neglected skill, IMO, is listening.  We have some kind of hardwired protective brain mechanism that prevents us from hearing our mistakes.  

I'd like to play with this, and start off with the ideas in your link.  I hope I can set this out.

What the author writes is close to something that crystallized for me a few years ago after a couple of years of lessons, but went beyond music.  He put it into words.  But I can go some decades before that to a book, "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg" by Pierce, who suggested that we can see things in many different ways, each being our particular "cosmic egg" (our model of reality).  

What I understood after a couple of years of lessons is that there were much different ways of perceiving or approaching music than what I had known.  I had come in already having played a number of instruments self-taught for a lifetime, and essentially my learning had been built on that.  How I got to know that there was a "something else" is a complicated story.  Bu this insight led to me to interesting places, new questions, and that has not stopped.

Back to your "hearing":
I did an exercise with someone a few years ago that taught me that we can spend a great deal of time thinking we are listening but actually tuned out. Playing consists of going from where you are to where you are going to be, and remaining present while that is happening.  Simply having someone around to catch when you are absent makes a big difference.

There is also what to listen *for* and what to hear.  It's not just the melody coming out right along with the chords, but timing within a measure, and a pile of things (which I'm still only just learning to hear now.)  Is it in fact a case of hearing our mistakes, or is it aiming consciously for the right thing from moment to moment?  Are we filtering out, or have we never learned to be present to our playing?  Do we know what to aim for?

The big thing for me was that there are many ways of perceiving, there are aspects that we are not aware of, various angles and approaches.  This applies to anything and not just music.

In the article you have this surgeon who as been operating successfully for several decades, and  an observer points out the height of his elbows and the placement of of the draping.  Suddenly he is improving because of something he never thought of before.  To me this goes toward both the idea of new angles, and the "cosmic egg" idea.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on December 28, 2011, 05:39:04 AM
In piano learning for instance certain students would benefit much greater being able to practically test out ideas instead of too much abstract thought put in before doing it. Some students however work much better putting a lot of abstract thought into their actions before making their attempts at trail and error.

I'm skeptical here. If the former were truly the case, I think we'd be either be looking at a remarkable savant or someone who ALREADY did the abstract thought to prepare themself. You can't just throw your hands down and have any success with a passage unless you have conceived the notes that are to be played and various other issues.

You may find from teaching young children that too much explanation with words is useless and they learn much better from practical trial and error and learning from what the teacher demonstrates instead of what they talk about. There is no need for savants, if you have much experience teaching young children is it clearly understandable.

There is plenty of technique to learn that requires a lot of trial and error and no amount of thought beforehand will avoid this or limit it. Playing piano is a physical activity which requires practical experience to learn from, and practical experience means learning to do things MORE correct AFTER doing them NOT AS correct. One learns a great deal improving upon their own foundation rather than merely trying to do things with a preconcieved model of what is right from the start. Often you will solve the issue and improve your playing without too much conscious thought and save yourself time just by merely enjoying experimentation with the piano, however sometimes we will find issues where we hit a plateau and some well chosen considerations might act as a catalyst to improve ourselves further.

You certainly cannot think about every single thing you do while playing a performance piece, it is much too much strain on the brain to consider everything you do logically, much of what you do at the piano requires merely a physical consideration (what it feels like) to produce the notes rather than conscious logical statements. This is of course after you have learned a piece which may require a lot of conscious thought to begin with, but this point highlights that the conscious thought is only a temporary power, it must soon be replaced by a natural memory and a feeling in our body.


With the many students I teach I find most of students understand the feeling in their hands better than the words to describe what they do. I find in our lessons I am discussing in words their trouble spots and helping them to become consciously aware of the issue. The conscious thought is never complicated or unique, often it merely identifies hand position, fingering logic or a musical idea, it needs to be simple to consciously consider so it can be experimentally applied to our physical action without hinderance. It is of key importance that the conscious observation is not a unique or obscure observation because we need to be able to observe similar issues in other pieces we have and will study.

When it comes to those who work best from launching straight in, I think the only way to describe it would be to speak of 'talent'. Anyone who works effectively this way is processing the thinking quicker. Otherwise, they would be all over the place with this approach. You can't guess your way to success. Nobody is that lucky. You can only be quicker at processing information.

Often my direction to a student is to merely play without thinking too much while playing. If they think too much from the start often what you have to improve upon is much more obscure (they make changes to their playing which interrupts too much their normal playing methodology thus increases the discomfort in their hands and thus makes changes to their technique more difficult), instead working with how they would naturally play the passage and improving from there often reveals much more natural solutions for the student. From this we can improve what they have, not try to cut paste ideas of mastery with no consideration of the student personally.

[timothy42b]

Back to your "hearing":
I did an exercise with someone a few years ago that taught me that we can spend a great deal of time thinking we are listening but actually tuned out. Playing consists of going from where you are to where you are going to be, and remaining present while that is happening.  Simply having someone around to catch when you are absent makes a big difference.

I'm not sure I'm right, this is mostly a private theory, but to me it makes sense.

I have an old piano text, some famous teacher in the 1800s, who does talk about learning to listen and teaching students to listen.  (He insists on scales HS only, as he says HT scales are impossible to listen well enough to really hear both evenness of tone and evenness of rhythm, and that much of the benefit of scales is in learning to listen) 

My concept of playing is that you have an image in your brain, you play, you compare the two, you calculate the error, you make adjustments.  Not much different from your thermostat:  you have it set to 70F, it reads 65F, it calculates the error at -5F, it turns on your furnace. 

I find it difficult to do both simultaneously:  listen to the image I want inside my brain while also hearing what comes out of my horn/voice/piano/etc. 

Recently at a trombone lesson I played a bit of one of the Mozart horn concertos.  My teacher rather forcefully during the first note said "Stop. Never accept a tone like that."  Whoops.  I was thinking about how I was going to play the run in measure three, not the whole note in measure 1, and I actually had not listened to what I was playing.  When I listened, I could hear it;  but there is so much going on while playing, it is hard to hear it all. 

[timothy42b]

Just came across the reference to listening and HS scales.  It is in Gieseking's book. 

[keypeg]

Recently at a trombone lesson I played a bit of one of the Mozart horn concertos.  My teacher rather forcefully during the first note said "Stop. Never accept a tone like that."  Whoops.  I was thinking about how I was going to play the run in measure three, not the whole note in measure 1, and I actually had not listened to what I was playing.  When I listened, I could hear it;  but there is so much going on while playing, it is hard to hear it all. 

that was the gist of that particular series, except it involved drifting off the note while preparing for the next note.  Continually being present is very hard to do.  You are present for that small cluster of notes, being at note A which will lead to note B, so you have to know how you want to play note A and listen that it's doing what you want it to do - while envisioning note B - and all of it is part of the overall picture.

This is very much in the realm of the surgeon of 20 years who has done everything perfect, and discovers that his feet aren't under him which gives him a slightly wobbly arm.  What surgeon would think of his feet? 

[keypeg]

My concept of playing is that you have an image in your brain, you play, you compare the two, you calculate the error, you make adjustments.  Not much different from your thermostat:  you have it set to 70F, it reads 65F, it calculates the error at -5F, it turns on your furnace. 

I find it difficult to do both simultaneously:  listen to the image I want inside my brain while also hearing what comes out of my horn/voice/piano/etc. 

I've been thinking about this.  I also noted that your earlier reference to hearing involved catching a mistake rather than playing the right note.

So is it this way?  Is it a matter of getting closer and closer to the note by seeing it as less error and comparison?  Or is it a matter of knowing what to aim for and how to aim?  The concept of slow practice is actually in order to be able to pack everything into that time period and to know where you are going before you start going.

What I learned is that we are not really doing things simultaneously.  It is more like a rapid shuttling forth between present and future.  I am here - I am aiming to get there - now I go there from my here and I have a new here - Is my new here the "here" that I had in mind? (maybe that's your adjustment) - Now I am here and I am aiming to get there .....

What did the surgeon's adviser say?  It is not a matter of having your elbow and foot in the right place, but knowing ahead of time that you want to have your elbow and foot in the right place.  Hm.

[faulty_damper]

I read the article.  Maybe those psychologists should leave the teaching up to teaching.  Or, get into the classroom, gain some experience dealing with real people over a longer period instead of experimental subjects in artificial trials.

[/quote]

I study psychology, and also teach.  The article (again for reference: https://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/29/139973743/think-youre-an-auditory-or-visual-learner-scientists-say-its-unlikely) is correct to assert that there is no evidence for different learning modalities: i.e. auditory, visual, kinesthetic, tactile.  It does not matter how "visual" a learner is, he still can't learn to play the piano by reading a book.

Did you misread the article?  There was nothing about experimenting with subjects.  What it was saying was that the teaching strategies used nowadays following these "learning modalities" is a myth and consequently, ineffective.

[timothy42b]

Did you misread the article?  There was nothing about experimenting with subjects.  What it was saying was that the teaching strategies used nowadays following these "learning modalities" is a myth and consequently, ineffective.

Well, does it really say that?

Here, let me quote:

The report, authored by a team of eminent researchers in the psychology of learning—Hal Pashler (University of San Diego), Mark McDaniel (Washington University in St. Louis), Doug Rohrer (University of South Florida), and Robert Bjork (University of California, Los Angeles)—reviews the existing literature on learning styles and finds that although numerous studies have purported to show the existence of different kinds of learners (such as “auditory learners” and “visual learners”), those studies have not used the type of randomized research designs  that would make their findings credible.

Funny thing.  It doesn't say there is no evidence.  It says the evidence doesn't come from sufficiently well designed studies. 

The NLP people claim that we have preferred communication styles, but that at any given moment we may be using one or the other, and the only way to be sure to communicate optimally is by paying attention in real time and adjusting to what the student needs at that moment.  Even if wrong, that's not a bad strategy.

It would seem the alternative to the  systematic choice approach would be one-size-fits-all, in your opinion.   

[faulty_damper]

"I don't know if there is a whole industry geared to this."

Yes.  The people who write books and go around promoting one idea.  They speak at conferences and do in-school seminars.  It gives teachers (thinking public school) something to do.  Makes principals and school boards happy.  Everyone is productive... But nothing really changes.  Things get forgotten after a few years.  Then they add some new research and take a different, probably reactionary, approach, and everything is new again.  New speakers come out, sell books, stir things up.  Everyone gets busy and things will change again... But they don't.  There is a market that way though.

The people who implement scientific research (in this case, the principals and teachers) often know little or nothing about what the research actually is about.  But what they do is to use the new information and attempt to fit it in with prior knowledge and understanding, and in the process of doing so, reinterprets the original research findings.

The data that was gained from research is valid.  The interpretation of that data is the problem, even for the very same researchers that conducted the experiments and/or surveys. 

Most of what we know about learning are several decades old and more research has been done since then.  We now know that the old school approach of rote learning is fundamentally vital to learning anything.  But for various reasons, this approach has been and is derided and labeled as "busy work".  Or, in words pianists can understand: you just need to play through all the notes once and you've learned it!  No need to repeat it again.

[faulty_damper]

It doesn't say there is no evidence.  It says the evidence doesn't come from sufficiently well designed studies.

I could have written a very similar article with the exact same assertion because I have studied and still currently study learning.  While the author uses the insufficiently designed studies as evidence for this assertion (he did a survey of available literature), I would have also used as evidence the direct response/changes as a result of learning of the prescribed modalities approach (which I assert does not work.)

The response to "multiple modalities" research prompted educators to use varying presentation techniques thinking that this was what the research suggested worked better.  The available evidence contradicts this approach as well as parallel research that suggests a stronger correlation memory plays in the learning process.  A short summary: people memorize better when presented the same material using multiple modalities, however, it's not the modalities itself that causes better learning but the process of memorization.  This issue is an example of correlation does not equate to causation.

It would seem the alternative to the systematic choice approach would be one-size-fits-all, in your opinion.  

I cannot respond to this question as a yes or no answer as the presumptions are not compatible with the question.  But some of the presumptions of the question are thus:
1. that learning occurs in the presence of teaching
2. that the individual differences of learners should be tailored to
3. that the learner will not learn unless presented in a manner that is best tailored to a particular modality
4. that certain modalities are inherently stronger than other ones and remains static


To answer No. 2 and 3 above: there was research done about which teaching modalities worked best for students.  The results were that students who had a professor who taught in a contrasting modality to the one they were supposedly better at actually performed better (retained more information more accurately and thus better grades) than students who had the same modality.  This contradicted the researchers expectation that students with a similar learning strength should have performed better since instruction was tailored to their particular strengths.  Go figure...


Edit 12/31.  Adding to the research results since it's of important relevance: The students who had a compatible learning modality actually did the worst.

[faulty_damper]

I think that I have tended to engage students in dialogue in one-on-one tutoring rather than asking them questions.

When you ask questions, you're asking the student to either recall information or put information together in a meaningful way (aka: understanding).  Asking questions is a way of facilitating the understanding process. 

So if you ask questions that require the melding of information, in order to answer it, the student must put that information together and thus, two pieces of a puzzle that go together get stuck together.  If he answers the question correctly, then he understands something.

[timothy42b]

I don't think I'll argue with you further.  You speak too authoritatively.

For the others in the room though,
one of my observations is that failure to communicate, and/or failure to teach, often occurs when the communicator's focus is too internal, on what he intends to say.  

As noted above in keypeg's post, it can be very difficult to focus on more than one thing at a time.  The internal focus prevents paying attention to the student.  You don't know if they got it, when they got it, when you forced them to zone out, when you should have stopped what you're doing and changed directions.  (young teachers end up blaming the student, more mature ones are just mystified)  

Some of the attempts to adjust to a student's learning style, whether temporary or fixed, probably work simply because you had to put a little focus on them, had to pay attention.  I've experimented with some of the NLP stuff, it takes intense concentration to pull off.

And of course, it is a fairly fundamental concept within psychology that you MUST know how your own individuality affects your interaction.    

[keypeg]

When you ask questions, you're asking the student to either recall information or put information together in a meaningful way (aka: understanding).  Asking questions is a way of facilitating the understanding process. 

So if you ask questions that require the melding of information, in order to answer it, the student must put that information together and thus, two pieces of a puzzle that go together get stuck together.  If he answers the question correctly, then he understands something.

I understand the method.  It was one of the central things in teacher training way back when, and I also experienced it as a student.

I have started asking myself why I don't use it when I teach, and why I don't like being on the receiving end of it.

For myself as a student, I already have questions.  My mind is already putting pieces together, and at some point they are almost together but I have a missing link.  If I have a question then I'd like to have an answer to that question so that the pieces fall together.  I don't want my question to be answered with a series of questions, because all that usually happens is that the whole thing falls apart on me.  I think this is the nature of my own learning style.

Another thing that happens when I'm asked this style of question is that even if I don't want to, I find myself trying to anticipate where the teacher is trying to go.  I find myself answering what I expect the teacher wants to go, and my mind is reaching toward what he ultimately wants to reach.  I am LESS connected to the thing because of this.  I would rather be invited to explore something and discover through that exploration.  Every time I get asked those kinds of questions, part of my shuts down and I get confused.

Meanwhile, when I tutor, I find the same phenomenon among schooled children.  They will answer my question with a question mark in their voice.  They want to see if they are answering how I want them to answer.  They also seem disconnected with the subject.  They have picked up the game, know they are being led somewhere, and it seems to stop them from thinking for themselves because they are used to having their thinking led.  I usually bring them to some non-school thing where they figure things out: maybe on the playground or in a hobby.  Here they think for themselves, nobody is leading them, and that ability is intact.  Sometimes I can get them to explore the school subject with the same freedom and abandon.  I've never thought about this before, but I think there is some connection.

If you think about it, when you ask questions in order to guide this way, you MUST get a particular kind of answer.  Your student also cannot start getting insights on his own that lead him to his own conclusions, because he is supposed to be following the thought process that you have in mind.  Maybe it is the intuitive student who gets thrown by this.

As a possible analogy:  There are those times when we almost remember somebody's name but we can't quite get at it, but we know it.  We're almost there.  So we ask this or that thing in order to jog the memory.  Often as a student I am close to an answer with the puzzle pieces coming together.  If I get an answer to a question that I ask, then everything will become clear.  If a teacher at that point starts "leading with questions" then I can't get there.  What happens when we students have the questions?  You guys seem to be going from a scenario where students don't have questions, they are not exploring, and they are not going "what if?"  What about the "what if factor"?

[keypeg]

The people who implement scientific research (in this case, the principals and teachers) often know little or nothing about what the research actually is about.  But what they do is to use the new information and attempt to fit it in with prior knowledge and understanding, and in the process of doing so, reinterprets the original research findings.

Theoretically.

What actually happens is this.  You come into a school as a novice teacher.  The veterans tell you, "Well, this year the higher ups want us to use the whole language approach.  Cover yourself by appearing to use it.  But in reality, interact with your students, get to know them, and use what works."

To create a theory you have to construct a model and create generalizations.  Once the model is written down it has a permanent form.  There are prototypes such as the ones in this thread.  Real people and real interactions are fluid.  The people doing the studies have to match what they observe to these prototypes.  Every study is limited and artificial.

When someone has taught students over a period of time, or done learning over a period of time, and wants to relate his or her experiences, then I am all ears.  These studies are too abstract and they are one step removed from reality because a theoretician who does not interact one-on-one with people interprets things, and then says how people are.  I have seen studies that basically say that I don't exist.  Of course they might be right, and like the sleeper in Alice in the Looking Glass I may be a figment of my own imagination, but I prefer to consider the reality in front of me to be more real than theories.

[nyiregyhazi]

To create a theory you have to construct a model and create generalizations.  Once the model is written down it has a permanent form.  There are prototypes such as the ones in this thread.  Real people and real interactions are fluid.  The people doing the studies have to match what they observe to these prototypes.  Every study is limited and artificial.

Of course it's artificial. The idea of someone being an aural or visual learner is completely artificial and the only way to test that is be artificial in precisely that way. The fluidity of real life is exactly why these silly concepts are so dubious. Good learning can come from many sources. But the experiment being referenced was not intended to test that. It tested a specific theory and seems to have confirmed that the theory (that a person learns best through a single specific medium) is extremely dubious. The test did exactly the right thing- and suceeded in revealing a total lack of evidence for the artificial premise it tested out. This only serves to remind how much more varied real world learning is. If you think the scientists missed the point by working this way, you're really missing the point of both what they were testing and what they illustrated by doing so. 

[nyiregyhazi]

The response to "multiple modalities" research prompted educators to use varying presentation techniques thinking that this was what the research suggested worked better.  The available evidence contradicts this approach as well as parallel research that suggests a stronger correlation memory plays in the learning process.  A short summary: people memorize better when presented the same material using multiple modalities, however, it's not the modalities itself that causes better learning but the process of memorization.  This issue is an example of correlation does not equate to causation.

Interesting points. If anything, this would seem to suggest we should depart from the most favoured medium- which seems like common sense to me. Learning is about improving on weaknesses, not developing even greater dependence on strengths and giving up on weak areas. It seems strange to think that learning would work better by playing exclusively on whatever is strongest, without seeking to develop a broader spectrum of abilities.

It's an interesting point about memorisation. Regarding the maths thing, it never occurred to me quite how much memory is involved in basic arithmetic, before this thread. I've come to realise that I could do well in maths at a young age, for no other reason than because I quickly memorised the basic calculations. If you can add/subtract any two single unit numbers from memory, all of the elementary level maths comes from there. Logical processes only begin AFTER this foundation. It has zero to do with counting on your fingers or trying to imagine 4 sweets being put beside 3 sweets. You simply memorise that 4+3=7 (both in words and in symbols) in whatever way is quickest. Then you cease the pointless and slow process of counting or doing it with objects. Those who do well clearly just memorise these basic building blocks quicker than others. There is no need to make any association with anything worldly, because only the memory matters. It makes no difference whether you involve any visualisation. I honestly suspect that the most successful tend to do this the least. All that matters is that you know them. Having to visualise quantities amounts to nothing but a time-wasting distraction, unless it contributes to an abstracted memory of the results. People would probably say that kids who can only do it by counting blocks are visual learners- when the reality is that they need to stop mucking around with long-winded counting methods and start memorising the results of what they are being encouraged to dwell on. Clinging to what objects look like look like side by side probably just distracts them from memorising the simple spoken/written nature of each result.  

This concept is also making me wonder about a number of things with regard to principles of reading music. Increasingly (even before this thread) I've been realising that a great deal of what I thought goes on in sight-reading comes AFTER the process of reading and does not contribute a thing towards actual recognition (eg. observing that notes form a C major harmony). The best readers don't assume C major and guess the notes accordingly. They process every individual note and then use that to tell them it's a C major chord. The individual building blocks are much stronger in good readers- and I think this plays a far bigger role than the educated guess-work that people usually speak of as being the trick to sightreading.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is plenty of technique to learn that requires a lot of trial and error and no amount of thought beforehand will avoid this or limit it.

I'd go even further and say that there's absolute nothing that could ever be exempted from this. However, I believe that the basic intention should be understood and the trial and error is for fine tuning. No amount of experimenting will lead to the right path, unless the basic intention is right. For example, a student who thinks that quiet playing requires an emaciated little prod will never converge on anything good. They'll always alternate between too loud and no sound at all and constantly make futile compensations for such errors. They have to be taught to aim confidently through the key, with a slow but continuous motion. Once the mindset is clear, they can experiment around the basic premise. But if you don't change the basic mental intent to prod and then instantly repress further movement, it's no use trying to tweak any details. The mental conception has to be wiped clean, first.

One of the biggest problems with thought is that we all conceive movements in a semi-rational way, even when we are not necessarily aware of it. For example, most people assume that to play loud notes you need to press with your whole arm. They may not ever have articulated this idea or consciously thought about it, but underlying assumptions determine how they move- and often cause a whole lot of trouble. Creating a whole new mindset and conception of the movement can go a long way to curing this. It's far easier to guide a person physically if you give them a clear explanation of the basic aims, and then work on the details more through feel. If someone thrusts their arm hard for a mere single forte, the first thing they need to know is how totally unnecessary this is and that they would be better off starting with a conception of the movement as occuring from the hand. You have nothing to work with until the mental conception is consistent with what is effective.

but this point highlights that the conscious thought is only a temporary power, it must soon be replaced by a natural memory and a feeling in our body.

Of course. But without that thought, a solution may never have even had a chance of beginning. The fact that we assign things to habit in no way trivialises or demeans the role of the conscious thoughts that got things there. If anything, it shows quite how powerful conscious thought is- and illustrates how conscious intentions can totally reprogramme habits and create whole new sensations. While the conscious thoughts are temporary, the "power" of good conscious thinking is that the benefits of it becomes permanent- whether you continue to think or not.