Four Thinking Styles of Perception/Process

[lostinidlewonder]

Lostinidlewonder, I'll keep this brief...

Was hardly brief.

The topic is thinking styles and their role in learning. Opening a thread does not by default appoint you as a chairperson, or permit you to pass ruling on the natural evolution of a discussion

Just stop it ok, you constantly keep trying to make it look like people are behaving in one way or another where they are clearly not except in your own head. If you quote someone then go off talking about something that they where not even talking about you need to be reminded to stay on topic. If you want to merely contribute then great, stop quoting people because you need to practice how to do that.

If you feel that the balance between conscious thought and experimentation is an inappropriate tangent, then feel free not to reply to any points on this

I will be happy not to if you don't quote me and go of posting as if what you say has any relevance to what I was talking about.

(just as I'm not interested in addressing any of the details of your uber-tangent about tangents).

Then it is a good idea for you to no longer quote me because every time you do it is pointed out to you how you try to go off into your own world.

Discussion progresses- especially in such a broad topic as this one. If you are not interested by the self-evident relevance of the balance that necessarily occurs between conscious intent and freer experimentation, nobody is forcing you to either read my posts or respond to them.  

Yes I am not interested in anything you have to post because I do not respect anything you write about piano issues. So please stop quoting me in the future and just talk on your own terms.

I am going to carry on posting in this interesting thread.

You "carry on" in many threads interesting or not.

If you are not interested in what I have to say

I am glad you realize this, but there is no need to constantly repeat yourself.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not going to address your post- I skimmed it and found nothing relating to the topic. In your absense, myself and other posters have been addressing the subject of thinking styles. You say you don't like tangents, so please stop prolonging one.

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm not going to address your post

But you have and with your snide remarks. Why don't you make it a habit to REALLY not address my posts by posting nothing? Maybe your personality doesn't allow it because you need to get the last word?

In your absense, myself and other posters have been addressing the subject of thinking styles. You say you don't like tangents, so please stop prolonging one.

Maybe the other users. And don't tell me what to do, you are not a moderator.

[timothy42b]

 Yes, but good sightreaders read unfamiliar chords and combinations well. It's not memory of chunks so much as rapid usage of basic principles. .

I disagree. 

Well, I agree that this is a regurgitation of conventional wisdom.  It is probably shared by a large number of teachers and players.

But after considerable thought and discussion with my peers over the past couple of years, I've concluded it is wrong, and changed my practice habits accordingly.  (It isn't completely wrong.  The processing component exists along with the retrieval component.  But I believe that a) the retrieval component is the majority and b) the retrieval component is what the good sightreaders do differently) 

Knowing that I can't convince you, and in fact am unlikely even to get you to consider the possibility, I will now end my attempts to explain this further.

[keypeg]

My impression on this topic is that it is moving away form thinking styles and into a generalized and abstract set of theories of how language learning takes place for everyone.  In fact, it is the opposite of the original topic, where students' styles of thinking is variable, and teaching adjusts to it.  In the present model, different styles of teaching are being compared (whole language vs. phonics --- as though there ever could be such a split in real teaching), and in the model all students have the same way of acquiring language.  Not that it is wrong - but it is indeed a new direction from the original topic.

There is this side topic on language acquisition and learning to read words, where we are given things taught in college and textbooks.  I tried to add the experience on a practical plane of someone who has worked in the field in various scenarios and can't recall any response.  My main premise is that in real life we use a mix of approaches, and we adjust to students.  I also think that any child learning to read shuttles back and forth and acquires reading skills from different sides that all work together.  I'd bet it's the same in music.

Last night while cleaning up I came across something printed by a 6 year old who was writing a story.  I'd say the teaching was partly phonics, since we included spelling and how letters work, and "whole language" since kids were encouraged to write as much as possible in a free way.  Here is part of a passage:

Emedeitly he began to climb and climb!  After a LitteL waeieL he started to think that some-won was in the cave with him, someone was.  The slimey thing sieD, "Don't be afraeid it's only me" ... He thought for a moment then siade "Shure, I'ev I've never had a slime slimme frend befor."

I see a lot of how I am evolving in unfamiliar things in music myself.  Partly you go by what you hear and what is logical, partly you remember rules which you don't totally understand, partly you are experimenting.  It is not this or that, it is a shifting combination of things.

The children were encouraged to use a dictionary.  "emedietly" is phonetic.  So is "littel" and "waeiel"  Spelling isn't solid:  some-won, someone - but the child had learned to spell "one" and "won".  We have slimey, slime (think of the word "me") and finally slimme.  You can see the thinking process and analysis: slime + y; slime + me, but wait, that looks like the noun "slime" so I'd better ad another m.  You have correct use of quotation marks.  The letters L and D.

[nyiregyhazi]

I disagree.  

Well, I agree that this is a regurgitation of conventional wisdom.  It is probably shared by a large number of teachers and players.

But after considerable thought and discussion with my peers over the past couple of years, I've concluded it is wrong, and changed my practice habits accordingly.  (It isn't completely wrong.  The processing component exists along with the retrieval component.  But I believe that a) the retrieval component is the majority and b) the retrieval component is what the good sightreaders do differently)  

Knowing that I can't convince you, and in fact am unlikely even to get you to consider the possibility, I will now end my attempts to explain this further.

Okay, a few points. Firstly I have regurgitated nothing. On the contrary, I have recently changed my stance based on the logical reasoning I presented- but which you did not provide any counterarguments against.

To reiterate, the example of dab vs bad etc proves beyond any conceivable doubt that bigger units can only be processed due to recognition of fine detail. Whether we speak of "recall" or "processing" means nothing. The point is that it depends on instant recognition of fine details to construct awareness of larger whole.  If you cannot perform recognition reliably,  you cannot accurately identify big pieces without guesswork that will inevitably cause errors. In this case, even details within the letter must be distinguished- otherwise b and d will be confused. The orientation of the constituent parts is fundamental both to correct recognition of the individual letter and to recognition of a whole unit of letters. Without being able to accurately observe and identify these details, the whole cannot be identified either- unless we're assuming some kind of supernatural luck.

Music has all the more possibilities than words. A reader who only memorised big units and cannot deal with unfamiliar chords at sight is a poor reader.  It would be senseless to base a whole rationale around this gaping hole.  Good readers rely on memory of bigger chunks. But that is just one part of the puzzle. The rest is the fact that they must process detail to even recognise such chunks with any accuracy. And that they must be able to perform a separate process that identifies completely unfamiliar patterns. People do not sight read well without being able to process both familiar units AND unfamiliar units very quickly. Depending on the ability to recognise and regurgitate various cliches is not enough to make a good sight-reader. Music is not limited enough in nature.

[keypeg]

To reiterate, the example of dab vs bad etc proves beyond any conceivable doubt that bigger units can only be processed due to recognition of fine detail.

If this is my dab vs. bad, then it involves something else.  This involves a disorder of not being able to recognize things spacially in a visual manner.  I got trained in this as a teacher, and I also have a mild version of this myself.  It's like being colour-blind.  You can study green and blue however long you want, if you don't see it, you don't see it!  The solution is not study of detail, but using different senses.

Yesterday my piano teacher wanted to make me aware of certain patterns in keys which allow you to recognize certain things quickly when sight reading, on top of whatever skills I already have.  It involved patterns of white and black keys.  For a minute or so I was totally disoriented and making mistakes I never make.  Then I said "Wait, I'll close my eyes."  This is due to my particular learning disability.  I can recognize patterns by touch.  I can recognize patterns by sound.  I can recognize patterns which I visualize in my mind as sight-patterns.  But if I look at things, I can get disoriented space-wise.

dab bad pad dap all fall into that category.  When I learned music calligraphy I had a hard time making quarter rests face the right way, and I had to use tricks for remembering which way to draw the flags.  The wrong thing still looks correct to me.  For a long time d and b were identical, long past any confusion my classmates had.

[nyiregyhazi]

That this is the opposite to the original premises is what makes it so topical. It was interesting to see that there is notable scientific research against the original premise- which I have long been skeptical about. There's an interesting book by Paul Harris about using a wide range of approaches in music teaching and associating between all. For me-this is the type of method that does work. You can be methodically limited or methodically all encompassing. Individuals will naturally sway towards particular aspects,  but when teaching is based on broad horizons, students ought to do better than when you only play to their strengths, while ignoring weaknesses.

It's on these lines that I'm gradually putting together a method for fluent reading. It's neither about big chunks vs small chunks, or memory vs derivation note by note. It's about ensuring that no holes are left by an excessive dependency on particular elements (coupled with corresponding weakness in others).

Coming back to the original premises, I think there's value in identifying individual strengths-and knowing how each student can grasp something quickest. However, getting lost in pandering to the individual would just limit them.  There has to be a balance between adapting to the student's habits and teaching them to adapt themself to a wider range of capabilities.

[keypeg]

Niyereghazi, I would not have thought that recognizing learning styles or strengths and weaknesses implies pandering to them.  That would be simplistic.  Not to say that that is what might be done.  I would think that it is more a matter of being aware that there is such a thing, and then working with what is there.  When I taught in the classroom, I made sure that my presentations were both visual and audial - i.e. you use pictures and you explain.  Since the kids were young and young people are physical, we included movement.  One child who had a particular problem was given an old fashioned typewriter (suggested by a specialist who came in) and when he was forced to slow down and type out his spelling words, for some reason the combination of those actions jogged his brain into being able to spell.  You do what works.

As a student I am coming in with a bunch of strengths and weaknesses which are all over the place.  I am advanced in some areas, missing things you'd expect to be there.  I have a natural instinct for a lot of musical things, but am surprisingly devoid of things that many beginners have.  I can "wing it" via my strengths and that's what I've done all my life.  But it creates holes that are ultimately limiting.

So what you want to do is use the strengths, but also try to strengthen the weaknesses.  If one sense isn't working well, then you use another sense to get at whatever the missing sense is not providing.  In my case, it's the patterns of black and white keys, for which my ear compensated, but that made me miss important things.  For example, black keys are higher than white, and you can put tension in your hand if you're not aware of spacing.

If you come from another instrument you also carry the strengths from that instrument, but you need to be able to perceive music "pianistically".  For me, chord awareness was weak, but as a singer I had a sense of harmony more along intervals.  On the piano the chord is also, again, a matter of white and black keys.  If you sense A major, D major, E major as "the major chords with black in the middle" as a kind of a shape or feel, this helps in playing the piano.  At the same time, the slightly lower third of piano tuning can mess you up until you get used to it because it's disturbing to the ear.

Bottom line: there are many ways of perceiving and approaching things, and the more ways we have, the more things we can solve easily.  Secondly, we all have strenghts and weaknesses, and we need to use the strengths but not let them override weaknesses so that we never get at them.

[nyiregyhazi]

If this is my dab vs. bad, then it involves something else.  This involves a disorder of not being able to recognize things spacially in a visual manner.  I got trained in this as a teacher, and I also have a mild version of this myself.  It's like being colour-blind.  You can study green and blue however long you want, if you don't see it, you don't see it!  The solution is not study of detail, but using different senses.

I think you're missing my point here, by coming at it from a different angle. I'm working up from foundation principles of logical possibility- not subjective issues based on how things are perceived to be happening. This is about what goes on under the surface. If you can recognise dab and bad when written in isolation (not in the context of other words), there are only two senses at play that could enable this to be happening. These are sight and the "sense" of left vs. right. I cannot conceive of any other rational possibility that account for recognition of the difference. What other sense could contribute and precisely how? Theoretically, a person can memorise the difference without understanding the significance of the separate letters. But it can be said with 100% certainty that they will have subconsciously processed the left against right issues that distinguish a b and d. That is because there is no other defining feature that can account for an ability to distinguish them. What else could possibly be used- if not recognition of the left vs right issues?

It can't be like colourblindedness, as proprioception can be used to imagine the writing hand and association can be made- no matter how painstaking it might be at first. I presume you can distinguish them now (even outside of context)? If so, however you went about it, you must have developed greater ability to process the left vs. right issues. Whatever you did, something MUST have triggered that ability. Nothing else physically distinguish the appearance of the letters- so without developing that, you would only be able to guess. Logically, you must have developed this specific skill (and must be perceiving the left vs right issues whenever reading these). Colour-blindedness means literally zero capability of distinction and zero capability of development.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niyereghazi, I would not have thought that recognizing learning styles or strengths and weaknesses implies pandering to them.  That would be simplistic.  Not to say that that is what might be done.  I would think that it is more a matter of being aware that there is such a thing, and then working with what is there.  When I taught in the classroom, I made sure that my presentations were both visual and audial - i.e. you use pictures and you explain.  Since the kids were young and young people are physical, we included movement.  One child who had a particular problem was given an old fashioned typewriter (suggested by a specialist who came in) and when he was forced to slow down and type out his spelling words, for some reason the combination of those actions jogged his brain into being able to spell.  You do what works.

Sure- I think my point is a lot to do with short-term vs long-term. Individual strengths are probably best for short-term learning. But if you do not challenge someone to develop other areas, that "strength" soon turns into a source of long-term weakness in the other areas. It only serves to fuel dependence on that area and neglect of others- unless there is a broader and more general approach.

[keypeg]

Sure- I think my point is a lot to do with short-term vs long-term. Individual strengths are probably best for short-term learning. But if you do not challenge someone to develop other areas, that "strength" soon turns into a source of long-term weakness in the other areas. It only serves to fuel dependence on that area and neglect of others- unless there is a broader and more general approach.

I would think that teaching is never planned in a short-term manner.  That sounds like band-aid work.  If for some reason I have the opportunity to perform a piece in three weeks, then I'll have somebody coach me and we'll get the quickest way possible to bring this performance together.  But if I want to develop as a musician (which I think piano teaching is about - otherwise it's piano coaching) then it is always the long term goal.

[keypeg]

I  If you can recognise dab and bad when written in isolation (not in the context of other words), there are only two senses at play that could enable this to be happening. These are sight and the "sense" of left vs. right.

The problem is that those of us with this difficulty CANNOT do this consistently, because that sense is not there and it cannot be developed.  First you have to look at the actual needs in playing piano.  Then you can identify a real goal.  The need is to be able to locate and play correct notes, move along correct intervals, and therefore have some way of recognizing these things.  The need is not to specifically be able to look at an array of keys with your eyes, and find these things. Therefore, if other senses will get you there, you use them.  If by closing my eyes and feeling the keys until their topography become familiar by touch, I can get there, then that is what I should use.  It would be stupid to use a defective sense where something isn't there.

[keypeg]

. But if you do not challenge someone to develop other areas, that "strength" soon turns into a source of long-term weakness in the other areas. It only serves to fuel dependence on that area and neglect of others- unless there is a broader and more general approach.

I agree with this 100%.  In fact, that was my situation.  I was a self-taught student with a strong ear, a strong sense of music, but had not learned to read music in the conventional sense.  Further more, because I felt music strongly and was naturally expressive, I used less than optimum physical motions to produce feeling in music.  When you come in as an adult student, expectations are also not as high.   Aggravating this, if I am to get at my areas of weakness, such as recognizing notes in reading, my playing will not have that wonderful fluidity that I am capable of - I will sound more like a beginner.  But ultimately I'll have a strength I didn't have before.

At the same time that we address weaknesses, we also use strengths to get at those weaknesses.  If someone has a great power of concentration, or imagination, you can use those to get at the area of weakness.

[nyiregyhazi]

The problem is that those of us with this difficulty CANNOT do this consistently, because that sense is not there and it cannot be developed.  First you have to look at the actual needs in playing piano.  Then you can identify a real goal.  The need is to be able to locate and play correct notes, move along correct intervals, and therefore have some way of recognizing these things.  The need is not to specifically be able to look at an array of keys with your eyes, and find these things. Therefore, if other senses will get you there, you use them.  If by closing my eyes and feeling the keys until their topography become familiar by touch, I can get there, then that is what I should use.  It would be stupid to use a defective sense where something isn't there.

How do you explain ANY ability to distinguish between bs and ds, if the sense does not exist in you? There is nothing that could rationally be used to distinguish them, other than left vs. right issues. If you did not have such skills, you would be guessing 100% of the time- which the accuracy of your spelling clearly shows not to be the case. If a skill exists, it can be developed. It may naturally be more difficult for some than others. But it cannot possibly be the same as colour-blindedness. In that case no ability exists and there is no scope for development.

I appreciate that you may perceive it as not being there. However, there is simply no existing variable that distinguishes between the two letters, other than this one. This is literally the only issue that differentiates between them.

[keypeg]

How do you explain ANY ability to distinguish between bs and ds, if the sense does not exist in you?

I stated that the part that is fault involves looking with the eyes.   Other sense can be used.  In my case touch, hearing (for piano - higher and lower sounds) work.  For some reason mentally visualizing also works.  This is my TRAINING as a teacher in a specialist area.  Using different senses or addressing different senses is important.  That is why in some learning disabilities, kids learn their alphabet by tracing letters that have been cut out on sandpaper.  Once they have absorbed the shape using a sense that works properly for them, they can then transfer that concept of the letter's shape and use it.

Another involves linear versus global thinking, where a person cannot process sequences.  At the extreme, it is hard to button buttons.  If something is taught or explained from detail 1, to detail 2, to detail 3, to detail 4, and the conclusion reached at the end, they cannot follow the chain.  however, they are able to see the whole picture all at the same time, and see the relationships crisscrossing back and forth.  They might get there faster than you or I.  If that person is allowed to know what the overall premise is before starting, he'll be less lost.  If he is allowed to process things his own way, then he will get there.  If he has to follow a chain of thoughts, he simply can't.

This is where learning disabilities come in.  They usually involve highly intelligent people, higher than average, who process things differently in one area.

[nyiregyhazi]

I stated that the part that is fault involves looking with the eyes.   Other sense can be used.  In my case touch, hearing (for piano - higher and lower sounds) work.  For some reason mentally visualizing also works.  This is my TRAINING as a teacher in a specialist area.  Using different senses or addressing different senses is important.  That is why in some learning disabilities, kids learn their alphabet by tracing letters that have been cut out on sandpaper.  Once they have absorbed the shape using a sense that works properly for them, they can then transfer that concept of the letter's shape and use it.

You're missing my point. The letters b and d are shaped identically. Their orientation with regard to the left and right is the only distinguishing feature. Faiing to develop awareness (be it conscious or unconscious) of this is exactly what would cause the confusion about which is which. Are you talking about music, when you speak of other senses? I'm talking about the written letters here (although direct parallels apply to any classical musician who wants to read unknown music fluently).

There is no other sense than sight, plus left vs. right that can be used for identification. You can associate to others. But to make an accurate association, you still need to be aware of the specific orientation of the symbol- bringing it back to square one. Other senses provide no alternative to that basic means of recognition. While most of doubtless do this part subconsciously, anyone who struggles would have to develop this skill- whether by conscious awareness of the exact issue that allows recognition or by an indirect means that triggers the same issue. Even if there is an ilusion of something else happening, if someone improves at distinguishing bs and ds, it can be said with 100% certainty that they are processing details relating to recognising the visual difference between left and right. No other sense can help there, so can only be random guesswork otherwise. Other senses can only be related by accurate recognition via ths specific sense.

You can't possibly associate other mediums to the written letters unless you can actually distinguish between those written letters in the first place. However you look at it, nothing is possibe without this specific element.

[keypeg]

You're missing my point. The letters b and d are shaped identically. Their orientation with regard to the left and right is the only distinguishing feature. Faiing to develop awareness (be it conscious or unconscious)

I am writing from the perspective of specialized training in learning disabilities, having worked with students with such disabilities, and solutions toward the same.  I have stated three times over that the way to get at "developing this awareness" comes through using senses other than looking at it, and recognizing that distinction by looking at it.  Are you not following that some people may need to use the sense of touch rather than sight in order to get at this awareness?

[nyiregyhazi]

I am writing from the perspective of specialized training in learning disabilities, having worked with students with such disabilities, and solutions toward the same.  I have stated three times over that the way to get at "developing this awareness" comes through using senses other than looking at it, and recognizing that distinction by looking at it.  Are you not following that some people may need to use the sense of touch rather than sight in order to get at this awareness?

I follow your points entirely. However, we are dealing in the nature of rational possibility here. The only possibe means of distinction exists in left versus right. No other sense can distinguish b from d. You can bring in all the senses you like, but unless the brain can perceive what makes them different (which is solely their orientation) you can only associate these senses to the dual possibility b OR d. They are 100% interchangeable. They can ony be distinguished if this specific style of perception can be developed. Otherwise you only associate those other senses to the basic symbol- not to the symbol in the accurate orientation.

As i've said there are ways to do this indirectly. But under the surface there is only one sense that can be used to determine which is which. if a method works, it does so because it develops this sense. No other possibility can rationally account for success- because no other attribute makes the letters different. There is no other feature that separates them.

It's just the same as how if you look at someone, there is no other way to say which is their left and hand and which is their right. The only sense that tells you (assuming they are not presently writing) is this same sense. It cannot be derived from any other means. Interestingly, if we were in touch with an alien race by long distance, there would be no possible way to communicate the concept of left and right to them, except visually and in person. Sideways movement is defined by being perpendicular to gravity. But nothing can explain which side is left and which side is right- other than visual observation. Nothing else substitutes for this sense- due to basic physical possibility. Without it, b and d are one and the same thing and cannot be differentiated by any existing means.

[keypeg]

Niyereghazi, the perception of left and right, or whatever lets you distinguish left from right, cannot process through looking.  Something doesn't function as it does in most people.  If you have a sense, it is very hard to imagine what it is like not to have it.  For a long time education was in the dark ages and called these people "lazy" because they were obviously intelligent.  The SOLUTION is to use other senses.  I have this in a mild form.  You cannot get this through thinking or studying.  It simply is not there.  In that sense it is like colour blindness.  THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO KNOW WHAT SOLUTIONS EXIST if you are a teacher.  Substituting touch is one way of getting at direction.

[nyiregyhazi]

Niyereghazi, the perception of left and right, or whatever lets you distinguish left from right, cannot process through looking.  Something doesn't function as it does in most people.  If you have a sense, it is very hard to imagine what it is like not to have it.  For a long time education was in the dark ages and called these people "lazy" because they were obviously intelligent.  The SOLUTION is to use other senses.  I have this in a mild form.  You cannot get this through thinking or studying.  It simply is not there.  In that sense it is like colour blindness.  THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO KNOW WHAT SOLUTIONS EXIST if you are a teacher.  Substituting touch is one way of getting at direction.

What I said was this:

If you can recognise dab and bad when written in isolation (not in the context of other words), there are only two senses at play that could enable this to be happening. These are sight and the "sense" of left vs. right.

The sense of left and right is the one that the whole thing hinges on. If this does not exist, there is no possibility of distinguishing between the written letters b and d- because nothing else differentiates the two. In every other respect they are literally identical and have nothing to separate them. There is nothing but that combination of senses that offer anything. Other senses can contribute to developing that awareness of left and right. Being touched on one side of the body, hearing sounds from one side and seeing something on one side are the three things that can contribute to it- as long as the person associates the stimulus and side of the body that receives it with left or right.

However, when it comes to reading a b or d, it boils down to whether understanding of the concept of left and right has been put in place- so as to pinpoint which of the two is being viewed. Nothing else will identify the symbols- because nothing else CAN identify them. You seem to be reading this as if it were some patronising attack, but it is not. It's an explanation of the fact that this task is literally IMPOSSIBLE unless this sense has been developed by some means. The logical issues actually give me an extremely good idea of why something that seems so simple to most could seem so difficult to some.  You keep talking about "other senses" but the whole point is that no other senses are capable of doing this job!!! If you insist that another sense is available, could you explain precisely how that can contribute anything towards identification of orientation (without involving an understanding of the difference between right and left)?

As I've repeatedly stated now, seemingly "different" approaches can only achieve the same thing through indirect means. If they fail to do so, it is rationally impossible that they can lead to identification. You can run your finger over a letter and use a sense of touch, but it still boils down to the same issue when you have to read or write the letters. One points left and one points right.  If you can perceive which is which, you have the sense that distinguishes left from right- regardless of whether you have realised it. If this is not triggered by an indirect approach, other senses are incapable of offering anything to replace it.

You keep repeating this colour blindness thing. If that were an accurate comparison then nothing could EVER enable the person to distinguish between a d and a b. There's a big difference between an underdeveloped skill and a non-existant and physically unprocurable one. If it's underdeveloped it can be improved. I'm really surprised by the defeatist attitude you are taking on this, considering how much you talk about the limitations of negative thinking elsewhere. If a person can seem to use other senses to distinguish b and d, they have a sense for the difference between left and right. This can be proved with 100% certainty, using logical paths. Another sense can no more substitute for it in this process, than a sense of hearing can substitute for the ability to taste food.

[keypeg]

I have tried several times to share the teaching approaches that I acquired through specialized training, then practice and experience, and how it helps with a particular difficulty.  If you find any of it useful, then feel free to use or adapt it. There is absolutely nothing defeatist about saying there are other ways of going about acquiring certain things.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have tried several times to share the teaching approaches that I acquired through specialized training, then practice and experience, and how it helps with a particular difficulty.  If you find any of it useful, then feel free to use or adapt it. There is absolutely nothing defeatist about saying there are other ways of going about acquiring certain things.

Sorry, but you're not understanding my point. Seeing as it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether something is a "b" or a "d" unless you have the ability to distinguish left and right, any "other ways" are not "others" at all. What you are referring to falls directly within what I am referring to, by very definition. I am neither commenting on nor prescribing the specific details of how to go about providing this. I'm illustrating that it's literally impossible for an approach to succeed UNLESS it is able to provide this specific sense (whether that comes by accident of by design). "Other" ways that work are impossible. If they cannot provide the lone sense that detects orientation rather than only shape, neither can they provide any means to distinguish between two characters- that have no distinguishing features other than their orientation.

If you can tell the difference between b and d, this is the sense that you are using. It is impossible for it to be non-existent in you- regardless of what caused it to develop. If it were non-existent, you would interchange between bs and ds completely randomly. The fact you don't proves that it is an existing skill and all existent skills can be improved upon by the right means. To compare it colour-blindedness is a major exaggeration.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you want a simple proof of this, take a 2 dimensional plastic d and turn it upside down. It's an instant b. The two characters are simply the same thing flipped over. The sense of left and right is the ONLY sense that can be used to observe which of the two states (or even four, if we include up/down as well as letters p and q) that single shape is currently placed in. No other sense can narrow it down any further than the shape- leaving two (or four) possible meanings. There can be no concept of how to identify b or d, without this.

I don't understand what you find objectionable about this simple illustration of fact. I'm just the messenger here- and I think that appreciating this logic goes a long way towards demonstrating what needs to be developed in those who have problems. I don't see why getting to the evident source of potential difficulties (and clarifying that there is no alternative that can possibly be made to compensate for a deficit in this sense) should be objectionable.

[keypeg]

Ok, succinctly - How have you gone about helping students with these kinds of learning disabilities solve these kinds of problems?  I have told you both my training, and my experiences.  There has been a lot of success. Can you share what you have done in the same area, and what has worked?  This is a teacher forum so we are interested in practical applications, not just theoretical constructs.  If you have a student with this difficulty, how will you help him?

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok, succinctly - How have you gone about helping students with these kinds of learning disabilities solve these kinds of problems?  I have told you both my training, and my experiences.  There has been a lot of success. Can you share what you have done in the same area, and what has worked?  This is a teacher forum so we are interested in practical applications, not just theoretical constructs.  If you have a student with this difficulty, how will you help him?

Well, I don't teach reading. However, my initial approach would be to work solely on left vs right. If he can identify the single shape that makes p q b and d, the only deficit lies in that area. I'd do things to harness the sense of proprioception and do various things to develop the awareness of which side of the body is which- involving which hand writes/kicks a football or whatever. Nobody has no proprioception- so it's simply a matter of devoting attention to practising associations between existing senses. Until specific links have been formed, left and right cannot be felt.

Once the sense of left and right has evolved to the point of adequately felt, they'd have to concentrate on associating vision with the "feel" for the corresponding side of their body- eg. looking over their writing hand and the other and saying out loud left or right, as they gaze that way. Finally I'd get them to say out loud whether the l is on the left or right and perhaps trace the letters, saying out loud these left/right issues and noticing which way the pen travels. From here, they have a tangible means of distinction that can feasibly become internalised.

There would be many ways to carry out the final details, but this would be the only obvious style of focus that gets straight to the heart of what they are not currently able to spot. You'd have to use existing senses to cement awareness of left and right, before there is any hope of differentiating between characters. Whatever method was used, nothing else can rationally lead to a situation where distinguishing the orientation is possible- except a process of fully internalising the awareness of the concepts of left and right, preferably though association to proprioception. I appreciate that this is harder for some people, but nothing else could rationally help. The whole process of distinguishing these particular characters rests on the specific senses that perceive left and right- not on the broader sense of shape recognition (which can only narrow down to various possibilities).

[keypeg]

Part of what you have invented just now is how it is taught.  The problem is that left and right or the shapes cannot be recognized visually so you cannot get at any trick for recognizing it later.  I.e. "looking" at it continues to "look the same".  But if you can get a first handle on it, you can get somewhere.  Therefore different ways could be feeling a plasticine d and b, creating a plasticine d and b, having someone trace the letters on your back, tracing it in the air.  that is similar to your proprioception.   Once you have that first sense, then you can deal with that d-ness and b-ness.  That is how it is done.

When I was confronted with those aspects of piano, I drew on my tactile senses because I knew of this.  Additionally, piano is a musical instrument so be definition, sound plays a role.  Why should we use mostly our eyes?  We don't just see C vs. Cm - we can hear it as well as feel it?

The main point in all of this is that people have different strong and weak abilities, and we have to take them into account rather than gloss over the holes in learning that they can cause.  Once again we are probably on the same page, but you had to get at what I was saying your own way.  Which btw is also one of my attributes.

[nyiregyhazi]

Part of what you have invented just now is how it is taught.  The problem is that left and right or the shapes cannot be recognized visually so you cannot get at any trick for recognizing it later.  I.e. "looking" at it continues to "look the same".  But if you can get a first handle on it, you can get somewhere.  Therefore different ways could be feeling a plasticine d and b, creating a plasticine d and b, having someone trace the letters on your back, tracing it in the air.  that is similar to your proprioception.   Once you have that first sense, then you can deal with that d-ness and b-ness.  That is how it is done.

But don't you see my point still? Making a shape with plasticine teaches the SHAPE- what it does not teach is the specific the orientation that distinguishes b and d from each other. You can make a single shape and turn it over and you have the other one. Making it reveals nothing but the shape UNLESS the child is observing left/right issues along the way and distinguishing d and b from each other based on these observations. If that is not happening, nothing is learned but the shape. It's not possible to make any progress without the ability to understand and observe left/right issues.

I've already said this repeatedly but NOTHING distinguishes between b and d other than orientation. If these issues are not being observed (or if the child is easily confused by left and right) there is no hope of learning anything but a shape. It teaches nothing of orientation- unless such skills already exist. The type of child who struggles with this issue is no more likely to overcome it through plasticine than anything else- unless something makes them notice the left/right issues that distinguish the letters. Whatever you might describe, it all comes back to one single issue- can they distinguish the orientation based on left/right? If the answer is yes, they understand. If it's no, d and b is the same to them.

Also, who said the kid is only allowed to look? I certainly didn't. When reading there is no alternative- but surely recognising how reading occurs does not imply that I wish to ban writing or any other learning method? Nobody said anything about not learning from such things. What I said is that the SKILL which must be acquired to READ is to be able to look and identify based on left/right issues and any learning method can only work if it specifically does something to improve these skills. Nothing else can provide any means of distinction. It's really not a very complex issue and I'm rather surprised that this is a controversial issue.

[keypeg]

The observation comes from feeling the shape.  Left and right are not only known through vision.  They are known through other senses.  Look, this is dumb.  Decades of research and experience working with people who were able to solve difficulties through them - it makes no sense to speculate that it doesn't work, or that we should go back to what we did before which did not work.

It is not a controversial issue.  It is just that people who had enormous difficulty reading were not helped by the logic of what is left and right.  They had to find ways of getting at it, and I outlined some ways that this is done.

[nyiregyhazi]

The observation comes from feeling the shape.  Left and right are not only known through vision.  They are known through other senses.  

Indeed. That's the point I raised. That you have to know them (by ANY means) and then use that to understand the single issue that makes d different from b- i.e. how left and right work. If a student can't take this beyond feeling and transfer it into the visual, it will never be possible to distinguish between b and d with any ease. You seem to be assuming that a wealth of stuff I have never argued against is precluded by what I stated. I stated nothing more than the irrefutable fact that there is no means to distinguish them except left and right. What you say above confirms that. I don't understand what you are objecting to.

You speak of logic about left and right- but I said nothing about how to pass it on. I said what must be known. I said they have to capable of understanding the difference between left and right to understand b and d and that nothing that does not develop this can work. This fact is beyond all question. If something works, it has made them notice issues that are grounded in left/right orientation of components of the symbols- which is the simple point I made a long time ago. Whatever makes that happen works for that reason. Whatever doesn't fails for that reason. I didn't say that there's only one road to Rome. I demonstrated what they have in common.

[keypeg]

Indeed. That's the point I raised. That you have to know them (by ANY means) and then use that to understand the single issue that makes d different from b- i.e. how left and right work. If a student can't take this beyond feeling and transfer it into the visual, it will never be possible to distinguish between b and d with any ease.

You are absolutely right.  For people with real dyslexia of this kind, they will have gained ground but they never manage to do things with the same kind of ease as those who don't have this difficulty.  You use tricks to help you cope.  For example, in drawing flags on eighth notes, if I can't sense the direction I will look at the clef sign and imagine that there is a wind blowing the flags away from the clef sign and then I know which way to face the flags.  Or in my case I still have the sense of left to right for reading, it is only how a thing appears which is off: the reversed note doesn't "look wrong" to me.

If I drive into a gas station to get gas, I will easily drive out the wrong direction.  So I make a note before driving in that on the way out I should "head for the blue house up ahead".

In the piano example that I cited yesterday, when I got disoriented and started missing notes after the visual instruction, I closed my eyes, reoriented myself, and then I was fine.  One positive is that I will never have the problem of "looking at the hands to find the notes" because the main thing that looking at the hands would do is to confuse me.

For piano orientation I don't see why the directions should always be to go left for the low notes and right for the high notes, when you can also go to where the notes sound lower for the low notes - why always vision, when the piano makes sound?

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about-taking places where the sense evidently exists (be it thinking of which hand writes, the direction in writing occurs or whatever else) and using that to train awareness. There is no possibility for success without using this sense. Even if others are involved to trigger, they only trigger- they cannot replace. That is why the only possible means of long term improvement is to tackle the sense and to attempt to bring it from areas where it exists automatically to those where it still requires very conscious thought. With learning difficulties, it might be harder to fully internalise the awareness, but there is probably nobody in whom the sense is absent. That would mean having no proprioception at all. It's just a matter of how to create association to existing sense of left vs right.

Regarding music, you ask why visual- but surely the answer is evident? Because notation is visual, hence there's only one way to read without risk of false assumptions- ie to visually process every note. Even to hear an unfamiliar score in your head, first you must decode it visually. Otherwise you're not going to hear it- either internally or externally. Music is done visually because it's the easiest way to accurately pass on vast quantities of information. Likewise with written text.

Also,  there's no easier sense than vision to associate a key with a sound. While blind people have to do it by feel,  there's surely no reason to give yourself the same disadvantage. We have vision and feel. Both are useful,  but vision is the quickest way to initially associate between a key and it's sound. If you don't exploit this sense (even if it's not your strongest)  it will surely put you at a disadvantage? Why not use strengths to improve it? What happens when you get to advanced repertoire- where only geniuses can internally sound all independent voices at once in their minds. If you are not able to easily translate visual symbols to the visual layout of the piano with ease, it will become a major impediment.

[keypeg]

I guess my question was why reference to piano often seems almost exclusively visual.  Intervals may be distances in keys, but they are also sounds with particular qualities that we can hear.  Higher and lower notes are not only to the right and left, but also pitch differences that we hear.  It is not only visual.

I was greatly puzzled by what a teacher said a few years ago in another forum.  She described a beginner's playing of the piano as being a case of seeing notes on a page, pressing down the keys, and then finding out what sound would be heard.  After playing the same piece for a week or two, the student would begin to anticipate what some of it would sound like.  For me, after a very short time as a child, I knew what I would hear before playing written notes.  When I pressed down the keys, I was aiming for that sequence of notes.  It was not much different from singing.  How can you not hear at least a melody in your head when you look at notes?  In the description I read, sound played no role whatsoever.

[nyiregyhazi]

I guess my question was why reference to piano often seems almost exclusively visual.  Intervals may be distances in keys, but they are also sounds with particular qualities that we can hear.  Higher and lower notes are not only to the right and left, but also pitch differences that we hear.  It is not only visual.

I was greatly puzzled by what a teacher said a few years ago in another forum.  She described a beginner's playing of the piano as being a case of seeing notes on a page, pressing down the keys, and then finding out what sound would be heard.  After playing the same piece for a week or two, the student would begin to anticipate what some of it would sound like.  For me, after a very short time as a child, I knew what I would hear before playing written notes.  When I pressed down the keys, I was aiming for that sequence of notes.  It was not much different from singing.  How can you not hear at least a melody in your head when you look at notes?  In the description I read, sound played no role whatsoever.

In the beginning, there can only be observation. You can't know what it would sound like until you've done each interval at some point- and associate the keys to the sound they produced. Obviously you were able to get used to this very quickly. However, others will take longer and may need to use additional processes, if they are to connect the pitch to the notes and learn how to anticipate the sound precisely.

See first and observe the results of what you see makes perfect sense to me. It's just that associations to pitch do not automatically evolve in all cases. Singing is a good way of connecting up. If you can sing, it confirms that are you fully observing the pitch- rather than simply pressing keys. This forces the association between vision and sound to accumulate.

Personally I developed in a rather unusual way. I have a good ear for sound, in terms of voicing and tone quality etc. I can listen to a pianist playing and hear very precisely what manner of balancing he uses to achieve his effects. However, I never paid attention to precise pitches, but just to the qualities of sound. In some senses I have a very good ear for detail- but I don't have a good ear for pitch. My ear was constantly drawn to how dynamic issues create musical expression- not to how the pitches themselves contribute.

[keypeg]

I came in through a back door.  The only education I received as a child was a bit of solfege in some primary grade, probably grade 2.  The teacher had a board with the solfege syllables written vertically, would point at notes, and we would sing.  A lot of them were patterns that we often find in classical music.  So I had a kind of aural template in my head and I sang.  When I played other instruments, I aimed for the same thing.  Then when I had a piano and was given notation, I found "Do" sang along it, and produced the notes.  My first pieces were Clementi sonatinas.  There was some thin 10-page booklet before that which showed a few chords which I played and heard in my head after that.  So for me, sound was linked to notation and the piano from the very beginning.

This is one reason why I have had to get a map of the keyboard into my head.  For me the sounds simply emanated from inside the piano, as if shining forth from their locations.  I was barely aware of black or white keys - just where the sound was.  This was both an advantage and a handicap.

I also think that players of different instruments will relate to these things in different ways.  Brass players have the harmonic series and have to picture a sound before they can play it because there is no physical location.  String players have another relationship again.  There are physical locations, but you can find the same pitch on a different string at a different location.  For an unfretted string instrument, you must have some kind of ear from day one.

[nyiregyhazi]

I came in through a back door.  The only education I received as a child was a bit of solfege in some primary grade, probably grade 2.  The teacher had a board with the solfege syllables written vertically, would point at notes, and we would sing.  A lot of them were patterns that we often find in classical music.  So I had a kind of aural template in my head and I sang.  When I played other instruments, I aimed for the same thing.  Then when I had a piano and was given notation, I found "Do" sang along it, and produced the notes.  My first pieces were Clementi sonatinas.  There was some thin 10-page booklet before that which showed a few chords which I played and heard in my head after that.  So for me, sound was linked to notation and the piano from the very beginning.

This is one reason why I have had to get a map of the keyboard into my head.  For me the sounds simply emanated from inside the piano, as if shining forth from their locations.  I was barely aware of black or white keys - just where the sound was.  This was both an advantage and a handicap.

I also think that players of different instruments will relate to these things in different ways.  Brass players have the harmonic series and have to picture a sound before they can play it because there is no physical location.  String players have another relationship again.  There are physical locations, but you can find the same pitch on a different string at a different location.  For an unfretted string instrument, you must have some kind of ear from day one.

Yeah, even without singing there's something that forces you to observe pitch in those. One thing that occurred to me about brass instruments recently was that if you miss a note, it has relatively little bearing on the sequence. To large extent, it's about the ability to hit that note individually, so narrowly missing one does not necessarily do anything to break the chain of notes.

However, on the piano, every individual action of playing a note has a bearing on what happens on the next one. If you slightly miss a note, your hand often has to perform differently to get to the next one. I think this is one place where visuals are so useful. While it's possible to make an adjustment by feel, if you've gone wrong then your sense of feel has almost certainly been thrown (and a deficiency in that sense is typically what will have caused the error). Visual awareness cross-referenced with feel makes it far easier to make the adjustment that reorientates the hand and averts disaster. Unless a person is simply in the habit of never going wrong, feel is a very risky sense to depend upon. Sight is what best corrects the sense of feel in slow practise. While things like hazardous leaps depend greatly on feel, there's no more useful thing that than vision both to help with building up that feel and to keep it on track. I think it's important to have equally good visual mapping of the piano and sensory mapping (the latter being w what aural associations must be triggering, if you do not base them greatly on sight) .

In a way, it might be easier for blind pianists than sighted ones who do not develop good visual mapping. It's probably easier to be without vision altogether, than to have an underdeveloped version of the sense throwing red herrings. I think the only way to prevent the sense getting involved is literally not to use it all. I'd either play with closed eyes 100% of the time, or ensure that this sense is being developed as fully as any other- not in isolation, but in association with training the feel.

[keypeg]

I don't play a brass instrument.  Do you?  I can't tell about the sequence thing.  On violin the choice of hand placement also affects the notes the come afterward, with the added dimension that you cannot see where one note stops and the other starts, your accuracy has to be within millimeters, and that note can be found at several different locations.  I know you can get somewhere by a combination of feel and sound on piano because I have done it.  You feel where the sound is and you go there.  Only you also tend to hover closer to the keys, which you also see blind pianists do.  There is less freedom of motion.

The trick is when thinking of other students to be able to get out of your own experiences, and that is not always possible.  I think playing other unrelated instruments helps.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't play a brass instrument.  Do you?

No- but logically, if they miss slightly with the mouth, there's less reason why it would affect the next notes, compared to if a pianist misses the act of aligning the finger to the correct note. The brass players next action is likely to be unaffected, whereas the pianist will have to "improvise" a completely unfamiliar movement, if they are to get back where they belong in time for the next note. I think this is a big factor to consider, when aiming for consistent accuracy. A lot of pianists don't consider that whole chains needs to be consistently intact, for any links in that chain to be useful. A trumpeter can probably just isolate the individual note that went wrong. I'm realising this with one student who plays trumpet to a high level, but needs to be a lot more careful about how he goes about improving his piano pieces. It certainly makes sense that the violin would also involve more dependence on what comes before.

I know you can get somewhere by a combination of feel and sound on piano because I have done it.  You feel where the sound is and you go there.  Only you also tend to hover closer to the keys, which you also see blind pianists do.  There is less freedom of motion.

Yes, I think this could be deeply limiting. While some blind pianists play very well indeed, those who depend heavily on feeling the keys first are going to be limited by that. To execute rapid skips, you have to be able to just know where your hand is and where it is going to go. Can you throw your hand over any white key on the piano without looking and without feeling any black keys-and know with 100% certainty where your hand is, before playing the note? I suspect that the finest blind pianists can indeed do so. You have to "feel" how to get places direct and know exactly where you are- not just get a rough idea and then stop and figure out the details from the black keys. If this ability is any less than extremely advanced, I think it would be a big mistake not to use sight to improve it- well, in those who have it available to them. While many depend on sight too heavily, when sight is used to train feel it makes for a formidable combination.

[keypeg]

I don't know if on the trumpet one note hinges on the next note so that choices have to be made.  I wouldn't be surprised if it did, because all instruments have their quirks.  With trumpet it has to do with what air does in hollow spaces turning them into vibrations and sound.  The important thing that I learned is that when playing piano, you should think like a pianist, and the same for any other instrument.  It is very easy to go to an instrument and still think in terms of your old one.  I'm almost thinking that any music teacher might do well to have played one instrument from each group.

Yes, about the movement thing and vision.  Another thing that we discovered recently is that turning your head slightly toward where you are going, which is a natural movement, can make that movement easier.

[faulty_damper]

The explanations already fall apart with phonetic words being written as they are pronounced.  There are too many shifts in pronunciation and I don't mean dialects or regionalism.  There is no such thing as "white English".  Even that varies in North America, and pronunciation continues to shift. 

There is such a thing as “white English”, as long as you don’t ask a white person what that means.  White people generally don’t know they speak white (as they usually don’t experience what is known as the contrast effect.)  In contrast, someone speaking English with a vernacular or foreign accent is aware of the difference because it sounds different from what they speak.

The argument about phonetically written words is not correct as virtually all books, journals, subtitles, etc. are written in English.  There is no example of fonetikly ritten buks in this manner.  Virtually all literature is written in standard English, which is the material students use as practice for reading.

‘f’ and “ph” have the same sounds, and are taught as such.  Through use of genuine reading material, students will know how to spell phone as aposed (opposed) to fone.

But the biggest thing for me is the idea that there is an either or.  We use all approaches, and part of one is also embedded in the other.

The following are quotes from What Education Schools Aren’t Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren’t Learning.

“The accumulated scientific findings of nearly 60 years of research gained the nation’s attention with the release of a number of significant reviews and compendia of the research beginning in 1990, but most notably the National Reading Panel report in 2000. The findings call for explicit, systematic teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics, guided oral reading to improve fluency, direct and indirect vocabulary building, and exposure to a variety of reading comprehension strategies.”

“By the 1980s, the scientific evidence was strong enough to debunk many of the assumptions underpinning whole language but also to challenge the ascendancy of phonics. Persuading school boards, educators, and textbook publishers to adopt the full set of scientific findings—many of whom had strong allegiances to either phonics or whole language, but whole language in particular—would prove to be inordinately difficult... The political tide did appear to turn when test scores in school districts using whole language curricula plummeted.“

It is very true, IMO, that teachers are not scientifically literate.  This severe lack of knowledge and understanding of how science is conducted allows the perpetuation of naive assumptions and makes it easier, for the teacher, to teach the way they were taught and assert that “it worked for me and look how I turned out” or to adopt scientific evidence to pre-existing ideas.  To this day, virtually all teachers coming out of a teacher preparation program that uses “evidence-based research” think using the multi-sensory, multiple modality approach is correct when the evidence contradicts this.  This is a direct consequence of the faulty interpretation of the scientific evidence, both by teachers and by the same researchers who conducted the experiments.  But also, the lack of understanding of the scientific process by teachers has the consequence that they dismiss scientific evidence and continue to use preexisting teaching practices.


My own opinion about the whole language vs. phonics approach is this: both work.  However, one takes way too much time than is available in a given school year and usually requires students to be a native speaker in the language that it is taught.  If the purpose of a teacher is to save time and have self-sufficient students, then the choice is very obvious.


Walsh, Kate, Deborah Glasser, and Danielle Dunne Wilcox.  What Education Schools Aren’t Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren’t Learning.  National Council On Teacher Quality, May 2006.  https://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf

[keypeg]

There is such a thing as “white English”, as long as you don’t ask a white person what that means.  White people generally don’t know they speak white (as they usually don’t experience what is known as the contrast effect.)  

English is spoken in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States.  I assume that you mean the United States.  In your country pronunciation, especially of vowels, is different in broad regions.

Actually, having read the rest of what you wrote: You seem to be writing about studies happening in the United States, and educational practices happening in that country.  I can only speak about my own country which is north of your border.

 In contrast, someone speaking English with a vernacular or foreign accent is aware of the difference because it sounds different from what they speak.


...

allows the perpetuation of naive assumptions and makes it easier, for the teacher, to teach the way they were taught and assert that “it worked for me and look how I turned out” or to adopt scientific evidence to pre-existing ideas.

That is not how my teacher training went, and not how my peers thought when I started out.  Nor did I stay there. It does not reflect what I know of language learning in the field or in theory.

[faulty_damper]

You seem to be writing about studies happening in the United States, and educational practices happening in that country.  I can only speak about my own country which is north of your border.

The science behind the research is valid regardless of which country it was conducted.  What applies to people about learning applies to all people, regardless of country of origin.  Research on fruit flies was conducted in Italy also applies to fruit flies in Canada.

... That is not how my teacher training went, and not how my peers thought when I started out.  Nor did I stay there. It does not reflect what I know of language learning in the field or in theory.

It seems that you want to defend your past practices based on your experiences which were based on a paradigm.  What if that paradigm was faulty to begin with, like a house built on loose sand instead of solid bedrock.  The house can still stay up on loose sand but there would be no upright walls and all the decor would have to be placed upon the floor.  Any attempt to upright the walls or hang decor will inevitably cause the entire house to collapse.  Instead, just keep laying decor on the floor and don't lean on any walls.  This is how you maintain a house built on sand.

A house built on bedrock will have a solid foundation.  You can have a house with perfectly upright walls and hang pictures on them, too.  It can even survive earthquakes, though some of the paintings, and fine China may fall off.  But after the earthquake is over, you can pick up the paintings and hang them back on the wall but you'd have to sweep and throw away the broken dishes.  Nevertheless, the house is still standing.

In light of the evidence and knowledge that has been learned through scientific research, many past educational practices should be done away with.  But, like old dogs, teachers can't seem to learn any new tricks.  Why?  Because their house would fall apart.

[keypeg]

.

[keypeg]

It seems that you want to defend your past practices based on your experiences which were based on a paradigm.  ........... many past educational practices should be done away with.  But, like old dogs, teachers can't seem to learn any new tricks. 

My ongoing practices were NOT based on a paradigm, and they were are NOT related to past educational practices.  I don't think that you understood what I wrote.

[faulty_damper]

Thoughts and many learned behaviors are based upon a paradigm.  It's simply a framework that allows for thoughts to be organized within the mind.  Without it, you would not be able to make grammatically coherent sentences or know that when something falls, it must fall down.  This also applies to playing technique as well as teaching practices.

Paradigms make comprehension easier; it allows for understanding.  But paradigms can also be insufficient to allow for all experiences to be organized.  And when that happens, either the paradigm must be expanded or changed or, if the person is insecure, the paradigm will be defended.  (Think of the commotion of theists on evolution.  Theists cannot accept the theory of evolution because their paradigm doesn't allow for it.  As a result, it is attacked or ignored.)

Ideally, one paradigm is enough (which is part of academia trying to find and discover new knowledge to connect to all other knowledge.)  But this is not the case due to the limits of a single person's experiences.

[keypeg]

This is too frustrating.  Too many assumptions.  I'm out.

[love_that_tune]

What a great post.  Can't tell you how many students I have gotten who quit a former teacher because they were inflexible in their approach.  In the beginning with students my energy is spent on how this student thinks, responds, and communicates.  Then I teach them music.

Thank you thank you thank you,

Carol

[lostinidlewonder]

... In the beginning with students my energy is spent on how this student thinks, responds, and communicates.  Then I teach them music.

I think this step is what all effective teachers go through with their students (through every lesson, it is interesting for me as a teacher to observe how students process and reflect). It is sad that there are a number of teachers who do not want to teach an individual, it is often unavoidable when teaching mass classes, but most music tutors who teach small classes (or single students) really do not have any excuse!

[faulty_damper]

I have not read any studies specifically about memorization of basic arithmetic and overall general mathematical competency but they are probably out there, I just haven't read them yet.  (Or maybe I have and don't remember.)  However, using all the available research I have read and understand, your thinking is correct.  The faster students are at calculating basic arithmetic (+,-, x, and /) the better they should be at math in general.  The key is faster, aka: SPEED.  This requires memorization and regurgitation of math facts.  However, teachers rarely have students practice hundreds of arithmetic problems when they learned how to +,-,x, and /.  Yet the learning research suggests it is absolutely vital.

I just read this article and it immediately reminded me of this thread and my post which didn't have any citation to support it.  Now I can cite one, though it's published today.  It falls in line with previous findings.

Basic math skills linked to PSAT success, January 4, 2013
(PSAT = Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143617.htm

This article states that knowing well basic math skills, such as 5+8=13, translates to higher mathematical competence at the higher levels.

[keypeg]

The article involves a study by scientists in a relatively narrow area.  I imagine that the experts, teachers and experts in pedagogy, will use that information together with their full knowledge in practical ways.  They have the full context of teaching mathematics.

In regards to this:

The faster students are at calculating basic arithmetic (+,-, x, and /) the better they should be at math in general.  The key is faster, aka: SPEED.  This requires memorization and regurgitation of math facts.  However, teachers rarely have students practice hundreds of arithmetic problems when they learned how to +,-,x, and /. 

When I taught public school in Canada, it was at the formative level (gr. 2).  Subsequently I taught all grade levels from 1 - 10 in a one-on-one setting.  At that point I also tutored students having problems, usually between grades 7 - 9.  My conclusions come from these experiences, together with ongoing research in pedagogy.

Most of the older students had problems with things like algebra because they did not have a true grasp of what + - x / actually was.  They had memorized and regurgitated math facts.  We'd go back to the concept level as it is supposed to be taught in gr. 1 & 2.  When they got that, then BOTH their algebra, and their basic arithmetic improved.  HOW we do things has a significant impact on how well we do.  Facts such as 2 + 7 = 9 need to be known.  But if you know:
2 + 7 = 9, therefore 7 + 2 = 9, therefore 9 - 2 = 7, therefore 9 -7 = 2, algabraically, meaning seeing the patterns, maybe picturing it as things being swished around - then you can make leaps.  It also becomes interesting, and interest is a great booster of learning.

Since this time, I have been learning new ways of approaching piano and music, which has greatly increased the effectiveness of practice.  Not only are the ideas of working with understanding and strategy similar to what I did with math., but reference is also made to music being "mathematical".  However, the view of math. itself is not what I expected.  Rather it involves a recognition and manipulation of patterns.  I have ended up having a second look both at how I perceive music, and how I perceive math.