Four Thinking Styles of Perception/Process

[timothy42b]

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.

In my opinion, dead wrong.   Perhaps you can support this unwarranted assertion?

[nyiregyhazi]

It's simple logic. Good readers can play any spelling or spacing of a c major chord precisely as written- not as a random ordering of CEG between a melody and bass. And if just one note is different, good readers will always spot that. it's clear that explanations that focus heavily on harmony recognition as a source of reading ability are therefore in reverse. First the reader sees notes and intervals and then their brain identifies the harmony, based on that recognition. if they don't start from note recognition, they have no basis to even know it's C major.

[faulty_damper]

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

Here's a quote from the very same article about the studies that contradict the multiple modalities approach:

"The authors found that of the very large number of studies claiming to support the learning-styles hypothesis, very few used this type of research design. Of those that did, some provided evidence flatly contradictory to this meshing hypothesis"

[keypeg]

It's simple logic. Good readers can play any spelling or spacing of a c major chord precisely as written- not as a random ordering of CEG between a melody and bass. And if just one note is different, good readers will always spot that. it's clear that explanations that focus heavily on harmony recognition as a source of reading ability are therefore in reverse. First the reader sees notes and intervals and then their brain identifies the harmony, based on that recognition. if they don't start from note recognition, they have no basis to even know it's C major.

The first thing you wrote before sounded like the good readers were looking at the notes one at a time.  There are at least some chords which to me look like what they are at a glance, like when you look at dice and immediately recognize "5".  You don't see C, then G, then E, then C or whatever order they are in.  You look at the chord and instantly you hear a C major chord in your head, you see a C major chord, and your fingers want to play that C major chord.  At least that is how it is for me.  It is like looking at the word "catalog".  I don't see each separate letter: it says what it is immediately.  But I can also name the letters, and if asked, sound it out as "ca- ta- log" or "cat - a - log".

[faulty_damper]

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.  

Scientific studies are not abstract to other scientists who also study the field; it requires having extensive background knowledge of the subject.  However, for those who do not have the background, it can seem very abstract and may not have much meaning other than what can be reasoned from past knowledge.  Lay people usually interpret the findings in a broad, all-knowing, sense when in fact, the findings are highly focused.

Psychological experiments and studies, as most other experiments and studies are, requires singular focus.  It's not testing all of the variables; just one.  It's much neater and easier to comprehend and interpret the data when the experimental design is focused on one variable at a time, not several.

[faulty_damper]

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.

Exactly my point from my previous post.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on December 28, 2011, 01:39:04 PM
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.

Quote from: lostinidlewonder
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.

Hopefully now you are not so skeptical.

....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.

If you have a basic intention, this is no where near the complete picture, thus the trial and error is not ONLY fine tuning but also a large chisel which takes off big chunks as well. This means from trial and error we can immediately realise what options will be thrown out the door and which ones will be more viable to experiment with. We also notice large changes in improvement not by what we are thinking about but what we are actually feeling in our body while playing. Think about it like a chess game, you react to the position, the context, not considering every single possible move, you learn to ignore the useless moves, same with piano but this is mostly appreciated through practical trial and error.

I feel there are plenty of issues with piano that we do not need a phrophylactic CONSCIOUS consideration, rather we solve the issue merely by repeating to play the passages and acknowledging what it feels like THEN if the problem remains you start looking at it closer. Sometimes we have issues which require conscious observation but many more times there is not real need for logical statements but rather merely playing thorugh the passage and working it out practically (much faster and efficient than thinking about every single step of the way).

[faulty_damper]

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.

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.

[faulty_damper]

The first thing you wrote before sounded like the good readers were looking at the notes one at a time.  There are at least some chords which to me look like what they are at a glance, like when you look at dice and immediately recognize "5".  You don't see C, then G, then E, then C or whatever order they are in.  You look at the chord and instantly you hear a C major chord in your head, you see a C major chord, and your fingers want to play that C major chord.  At least that is how it is for me.  It is like looking at the word "catalog".  I don't see each separate letter: it says what it is immediately.  But I can also name the letters, and if asked, sound it out as "ca- ta- log" or "cat - a - log".

This is starting to sound like the "whole language" approach to learning how to read.  It rarely worked in a classroom and was lauded as a complete failure.

Whole language came about because of observations of how good readers read. It appeared, at the time, that the better readers saw the entire word instead of individual letters within that word.  (This is true, sort of, but not really.)  This, however, was not how the good readers learned how to read.  All readers, good or bad, learn how to read phonetically either by learning the association of letters to sounds or by extrapolating out sounds as they are read so they see patterns that letters make, and figure out on their own that letters have specific sounds.

So what was the difference between good and bad readers? It was so obvious that everyone missed it: Practice.   Instead, they went around in circles trying to find a really neat and fancy new way to teach students how to be better readers.  And Failed.

The phonetic way of learning to read is like looking at each note on the staff.  It's absolutely vital, even for beginners who at taught to read chords.  Eventually, they figure out, by extrapolation when given other chords, that the individual notes indicate where it is on the keyboard.

[keypeg]

Faulty Damper, when you write about the whole language approach is this from your experience as a teacher in the primary grades?  If so, how did you teach reading, and what worked with your students?  In groups or also one-on-one?

I'm also not sure that you understand what I wrote about my own chord recognition.  Above all, you can't know how I came to it, because I did not describe it.  There are a few assumptions being made.

[faulty_damper]

Howard Richman put the issue of sight-reading quite simply.  What appears to be instantaneous identification and performance is really super fast mental processing that overlap.  "In a good reader, it happens so fast that the steps blur as one." (27)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=31234.0

Richman, Howard. Super Sight-Reading Secrets, 3rd edition. Ventura, CA: Sound Feelings Publishing, 1986. Print.

[faulty_damper]

Faulty Damper, when you write about the whole language approach is this from your experience as a teacher in the primary grades?  If so, how did you teach reading, and what worked with your students?  In groups or also one-on-one?

I mentioned the whole language approach as an example to illustrate the process of reading.  I did not teach students how to read, though I did study with a professor who, at one point, fully endorsed the whole language approach many years ago.  She never said that the whole language approach actually worked when she taught it to elementary school children.  Instead, what she taught in her college courses about reading was that phonetic approach is the correct way to teach how to read.  She was a reading specialist with a PhD in it.

[keypeg]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hopefully now you are not so skeptical.

"Now"? My stance is the same as it always was- that BOTH conscious thought and self-perception/experimentations are vital, in the process of learning. The first gives the broad concept for movement, the latter refines it.

If you have a basic intention, this is no where near the complete picture, thus the trial and error is not ONLY fine tuning but also a large chisel which takes off big chunks as well.

I didn't say it was the complete picture. But if you're not in the right ball-park, experimentation is unlikely to take you there. You don't navigate around a big city by walking until your destination magically appears. However, once you're in the right area, you don't have to glue your nose to a map and can start use your senses to look for the place you want to go to.

This means from trial and error we can immediately realise what options will be thrown out the door and which ones will be more viable to experiment with.

Considering how many variables are at work, this amounts to attempting to narrow infinite possibilities, by elimination. Some things that are best avoided in one situation are vital in other styles of movement. Trial and error can take you from a general idea to the exact sensory details, or it can lead to bringing something in that has ALREADY been learned. However, it's extremely limited when done truly randomly. A pianist who can play Chopin Etudes fluently does very different experiments to one who struggles with a C major scale.

As an example, I never exploited the act of extending each finger outwards until the past year or so. Since then, I've realised that this is one of the most important actions of all- primarily due to conscious thinking followed up by experimentation around the conscious concept. Now when I play staccatto, my instincts tend to bring this action in and allow me to move with far more control and simplicity than what 20+ years of experimenting had led to. Conscious focus was required, to develop something outside of my experience.

[nyiregyhazi]

The first thing you wrote before sounded like the good readers were looking at the notes one at a time.

I wasn't suggesting that- but that every note IS processed and not assumed.

You don't see C, then G, then E, then C or whatever order they are in.

 

So how do pianists play completely unfamiliar spellings of C major chords with pinpoint accuracy? You very much do. It's just that you don't say to yourself "CEG" etc. You just process it in an instant- which is so rapid that many people think they just a C major chord. Even the most familiar spelling is only familiar because you have processed every note. Change just one, and you have something different. Logically, I find it inconceivable that there could be any explanation other than that every individual note gets processed. There are some sight-readers who may process just three notes and guess the rest. But based on probabilities, it's a given that such readers will play less accurately. Elite sight-readers don't just vamp on C major, they play details correctly. Also, those who make guesses based on just a few notes will also be likely to miss non-harmonic notes and 7ths etc. UNLESS they actually process those individual notes.

You look at the chord and instantly you hear a C major chord in your head, you see a C major chord, and your fingers want to play that C major chord.  At least that is how it is for me.  It is like looking at the word "catalog".  I don't see each separate letter: it says what it is immediately.

 

Yes, but you probably process every letter immediately. I don't see cata and then start assuming. It could be cataclysm. Also, if it is said "catolog" would you miss that? I certainly wouldn't. Change any individual letter and I will spot that at first glance. I am very doubtful about supposed assumptions.

[nyiregyhazi]

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.

Funnily enough, I always used to hate rote learning of times tables. I always thought it seems pointless to memorise things like the 2,5 and 10 ones, considering how easy it is to perform a calculation. I find it strange that even such mindless and truly pointless ones as those three are drilled in- whereas I don't know of any chants for memorising basic addition. It seems to me it would make more sense, if anything, to memorise the unit that is left over by adding or subtracting each combination of single unit numbers. This strikes me as even more important than knowing multiplication tables.

Clearly memorising these is what the mathematically intelligent have done, yet for some bizarre reason teachers take the "unintelligent" kids and decide to relate it to the real world by giving them blocks to piss around with (rather than formulaic combinations to remember). It seems like a case of deciding that a kid is "stupid" and forcing that into being- by teaching them to depend on the most inept and time-consuming method available for calculations, when they ought to be drilling themself into memorising abstract results.

[lostinidlewonder]

"Now"? My stance is the same as it always was- that BOTH conscious thought and self-perception/experimentations are vital, in the process of learning. The first gives the broad concept for movement, the latter refines it.

Let me simplify what I said what you feel skeptical about. Some people like to experiment more and think less beforehand (think less does not mean not think at all), some people like to think more before they experiment. If you don't think this is true then you simply have not taught an enough variety of students.

I didn't say it was the complete picture.

You did not have to because you merely said, you need a small idea and then the trial and error is ONLY a FINE TUNING device. I elaborated to say that it is not only a fine tuning device but even more.

But if you're not in the right ball-park, experimentation is unlikely to take you there.

No amount of thinking beforehand will limit or reduce the amount of trial and error you will need to undergo to appreciate something. So we can also say, conscious thought beforehand is MORE unlikely to "get you there" than experimentation and appreciating the feeling in your hands instead of some logical thought statement. People tackle a problem with different amounts of conscious thought during, before and after experimentation, depending on your learning style you will use different intensities of each and during different times.

[nyiregyhazi]

Let me simplify what I said what you feel skeptical about. Some people like to experiment more and think less beforehand (think less does not mean not think at all), some people like to think more before they experiment.

I DO think it's true- as you describe it above. My skepticism is about the idea that some people do better with minimal thinking. Those people think quicker- not less. Unless a person has a basic level of understanding and prior background, they cannot leap straight in and hope for things to work. My point is that those who don't need to think for long first have internalised enough to think quicker and less consciously. EVERYONE thinks and everyone experiments. However, those who think the least are either talented or foolhardy. As a teacher, you see no shortage of the latter, and have to slow them down.  

You did not have to because you merely said, you need a small idea and then the trial and error is ONLY a FINE TUNING device. I elaborated to say that it is not only a fine tuning device but even more.

Would you mind quoting the exact words? Unless I'm much mistaken, your wording amounts to a severe distortion of my what I said. Fine tuning is VERY important. However, trial and error does not magically lead to what works, unless you start with some idea where to look for it. Otherwise it's a needle in a haystack scenario.

No amount of thinking beforehand will limit or reduce the amount of trial and error you will need to undergo to appreciate something.

The point is that unless you have an idea of what you are hoping and needing to do, you may never get anywhere near what you need to get a feel for. It may never happen AT ALL! In the past couple of years I have discovered things that a life time of experimentation never led me to. What thinking does is make it possible for trial and error to actually converge on something. The trial and error I benefit from at the moment is the result of background thought about movement issues. A couple of years ago, my trial and error was going nowhere, because there was no understanding of the principles that have since allowed me to move more efficiently.

So we can also say, conscious thought beforehand is MORE unlikely to "get you there" than experimentation and appreciating the feeling in your hands instead of some logical thought statement.

Who passed the law saying we're going to have to ban one of them? What relevance is that supposed to have? To speak of a scenario in which you are permitted to think but never try out the results of that thinking is to ban yourself from ever playing the piano anyway. It would be impossible to separate even if a person tried- and nobody (certainly not myself) is saying they should! The whole point I'm raising is quite how silly it is to close off useful ways of learning!!! What I am certainly NOT saying is that people should think instead of feeling or experimenting.

The best process is not so much "trial and error" but "trial and improvement". With insufficient thought and understanding of what to look for, sadly it often tends to be the former. The problem is that many teachers only relate it to the sound- which means that there is little understanding of what important physical issues to pay heed to during experiments. Ironically, the sound also suffers, if you don't have a clear idea of the movement issues that also have to be improved within trials. If you don't consider movement issues, you can't control the sound reliably- meaning that you might succeed in hitting what you want only to completely lose it again. Sound alone is not a good enough yardstick for developing, unless the foundations are all thoroughly in place.

[lostinidlewonder]

I DO think it's true- as you describe it above.

And it is the same as what you said you where skeptical about just a simplified version.

Would you mind quoting the exact words?

Quote from: nyiregyhazi on December 31, 2011, 05:58:23 AM
....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.

You said here trail and error is for fine tuning, where it is obvious it is more than that. In fact many students through trial and error and experimentation who have a good sense of improvement in their hands as they undergo these trials can indeed find the right path without a conscious thought about the intention, they instead focus on a physical appreciation rather than a conscious one. Thinking about it for 1 hour will not be as good as trial and error for 1 hour, the thought is merely a small factor a miniscule issue compared to the physical work you need to go through to accomplish the problem, thus trial and error becomes a huge tool not just a fine tuning one.

The point is that unless you have an idea of what you are hoping and needing to do, you may never get anywhere near what you need to get a feel for. It may never happen AT ALL! In the past couple of years I have discovered things that a life time of experimentation never led me to. What thinking does is make it possible for trial and error to actually converge on something. The trial and error I benefit from at the moment is the result of background thought about movement issues. A couple of years ago, my trial and error was going nowhere, because there was no understanding of the principles that have since allowed me to move more efficiently.

This is fine for many people as yourself but not everyone has this problem so your description is only for your learning type. I have many students who understand the feeling in their hands much better than a conscious statement aimed to improve it.

Who passed the law saying we're going to have to ban one of them? What relevance is that supposed to have?

I have not suggested to ban them and in fact all of my posts highlight a combined use of both but the individual may use different intensities of each depending upon their learning style.

[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.

This is what I was skeptical about. I don't think anyone benefits from less thought. Some people just think through what they need more quickly and are hence ready to experiment sooner. Others need to be made to stop and think, or they launch in and go horifically wrong, due to having no idea as to what they are attempting to do. Do you disagree with that? Because it's clear that elsewhere we are saying that both thought and experiment are important.

You said here trail and error is for fine tuning, where it is obvious it is more than that. In fact many students through trial and error and experimentation who have a good sense of improvement in their hands as they undergo these trials can indeed find the right path without a conscious thought about the intention, they instead focus on a physical appreciation rather than a conscious one.

Yes, but clearly they are familiar with the basic requirements. If you get a student with anything less than perfect foundations, they just carry on doing what they know. Experimenting doesn't wipe the slate clean and allow a new start. They just change some bits and do the rest the same. Physical prodding can be a big help- but it takes a lot less time if they have a mental conception of what they are supposed to be changing and perceiving. A flawed conscious belief is much easier to replace in the conscious mind. Sometimes you must remove a conscious belief, before a person can get the right "feel"- otherwise the power of intent is just too strong. This is especially true if people think loud playing is about using strong pressure of the arm.

Thinking about it for 1 hour will not be as good as trial and error for 1 hour,

Actually, I'd wholeheartedly disagree. The latter is exactly what people who have never had a piano lesson do. Frequently, the product of their unguided experiments is severe tension and very poor movement. If I could choose between teaching someone who has never played the piano before (but had thought about sound principles for movement) compared to someone who has pounded away without guidance, I'd take the thinker. They'd be far easier to teach good technique to. Also, if I could take someone who already spent time learning to read notation before they ever played a note (over someone who got taught how to play Heart and Soul with bad technique), again- give me the thinker, please. The best students are those who think what to do- not those who just "have a go" for an hour without putting any thought behind it. But this is a ludicrous dichotomy. As I already said in my last post- it's plain silly to talk about losing either. The whole point is that learning is done best by combining various faculties. Not pretending that choosing one means eliminating another.

You might as well be arguing about whether oxygen or water is more important to life.

I have not suggested to ban them and in fact all of my posts highlight a combined use of both but the individual may use different intensities of each depending upon their learning style.

? So why the pointless and false dichotomy above? Unless you propose to ban one, it has no meaning. A person could argue that oxygen is more important to life, because you die quicker without it. But unless you had to choose between oxygen and water (having no access to the other), it's meaningless to debate the issue. The only answer is that we need both. You seem to think we occupy opposing sides, but my only "side" is to say that BOTH experimentation and thought are extremely important and that neither should be downplayed at all.

[lostinidlewonder]

This is what I was skeptical about. I don't think anyone benefits from less thought.

You are free to think that but you are not basing it on teaching hundreds of students as I am. "too much" is left open to interpretation, so there is no point trying to work out an exact amount of thought unless you enjoy talking about issues which only will apply to certain people, I'd rather deal with general ideas since I am not teaching an individual.

If you get a student with anything less than perfect foundations, they just carry on doing what they know.

I disagree. Everytime you experiment on the piano you are acknowledging countless amount of physical data. To the sensitive student who understands what it feel like to play comfortably and then more comfortably they work very well without conscious statments prior to experimentation. I see this in early beginners as well, young children, they do not understand words as clearly as they understand new muscular movements that they can discover themselves through the context of the music. So in my practical experience teaching many young children has proved to me a mind type which benefits from physical data rather than conscious ones. Adults tend to like to verbalize and be more consciously aware of their actions, but not all of them do.

Actually, I'd wholeheartedly disagree.

Wholeheartedly wow, very intense lol.

So you can think about playing piano all day without ever touching the keyboard and improve faster than those who merely experiement playing immediately, good for you!

You might as well be arguing about whether oxygen or water is more important to life. blah blah

Ignored because its a tangent to the thread and uninteresting.

[nyiregyhazi]

You are free to think that but you are not basing it on teaching hundreds of students as I am. "too much" is left open to interpretation, so there is no point trying to work out an exact amount of thought unless you enjoy talking about issues which only will apply to certain people, I'd rather deal with general ideas since I am not teaching an individual.

Well, indeed. QUALITY of thought is the issue- not the time spent. But I've been teaching for ten years and it's abundantly clear that the majority of problems in the average student occur when they don't know what they are trying to do.

I disagree. Everytime you experiment on the piano you are acknowledging countless amount of physical data.

And those who do not have piano lessons? They are not using trial and error- or illustrating its woeful limitations (when conscious thought does not turn it into a guided form of  trial and improvement)? Hell, I had plenty of piano lessons. My experiments still left countless holes that I have since had to fill in. I needed a radical conscious overhaul, to retrain my sense of movement- as well as plenty of experimentation around the issues. I had conscious advice before- the problem was that it didn't get to the heart of any of the important issues in which I was lacking. It was all vaguery. What I needed was a straight-up understanding of how to conceive the most simple movements- specifically in the hand, but also with reference to how to use my arms less heavily.

To the sensitive student who understands what it feel like to play comfortably and then more comfortably they work very well without conscious statments prior to experimentation.

So screw the rest? If they don't figure it out, they're insensitive?

So you can think about playing piano all day without ever touching the keyboard and improve faster than those who merely experiement playing immediately, good for you!

So I didn't mention what a ludicrous dichotomy it is to refer separate two inseparable variables? And I didn't mention that I am not arguing for a single element out of the context of the whole? You can fight against an imaginary opponent in the opposite corner if you wish, but I'm standing in the middle, sorry.

Let's frame it in a way that has an actual relevance: If I had a way of ensuring that my students spent half of their time just thinking and half of their time playing  (rather than spend all of their time at trial and error) I know that they'd all do a lot better for it. Only the talented can leap in with minimal thinking time. Everyone else limits themself.

[lostinidlewonder]

Well, indeed. QUALITY of thought is the issue- not the time spent. But I've been teaching for ten years and it's abundantly clear that the majority of problems in the average student occur when they don't know what they are trying to do.

Sure there are students who work this way but of course not all of them do. I have found students who have been self taught for many years do indeed have inefficiecies to their learning/playing approach however there is a foundation they have built themselves which is much easier from my experience to work with as a teacher. You need to work with a students foundation not try to cut paste ideas of mastery into their playing. A student who has through trial and error attempted certain technique without success will often discover the correct way a lot faster once it is described or shown to them, but the point is that they needed to do it "not as right" so they could be sure they have discovered/been revealed an improvement.

And those who do not have piano lessons? They are not using trial and error- or illustrating its woeful limitations? Hell, I had plenty of piano lessons. My experiments still left countless holes that I have since had to fill in.

When I was growing up I went through many piano teachers and only during the lessons would one be thinking as the teacher wanted you to think. When you where left on your own at home practicing which was much greater than the time spent with a teacher, you are indeed forced to experiement and through trial and error find the way. A good student will be reminded by their teachers guiding points but in reality most students go off trying to improve through their own hands and even the good students will go off on their own way. It is a critical to experiment so we  understand our own hands on our own terms. The best students I have found are keenly aware of what their hands feel like when playing, they acquire this from being very interested in the feeling in their hands while they play and enjoying to experiment and improve upon it. The improvement is merely an increase relaxation and comfort while playing and that doesn't require specialist knowledge to understand what that feels like

So screw the rest? If they don't figure it out, they're insensitive?

This thread is about many mind types, not about which one is better or lacking.

So I didn't mention what a ludicrous dichotomy it is to refer separate two inseparable variables? And I didn't mention that I am not arguing for a single element out of the context of the whole? You can fight against an imaginary opponent in the opposite corner if you wish, but I'm standing in the middle, sorry.

Let's frame it in a way that has an actual relevance: If I had a way of ensuring that my students spent half of their time just thinking and half of their time playing  (rather than spend all of their time at trial and error) I know that they'd all do a lot better for it. Only the talented can leap in with minimal thinking time. Everyone else limits themself.

You persist to try to talk about them separately. I told you I ignored your oxygen/water blah. Nothing to add since this is a useless tangent.

[nyiregyhazi]

When you where left on your own at home practicing which was much greater than the time spent with a teacher, you are indeed forced to experiement and through trial and error find the way.

Exactly. This is the very reason why conscious thought is so vital. Do you go away and just do whatever your habits tend towards- probably losing the "feel" of what the teacher tried to show you? Or do you have a way of keeping things on track, using conscious thought and awareness of what you are actually doing? Trial and improvement is half trial and half thought. Trial and error just reinforces error, unless there is thought about how to move on from the error. Without that, it's just errors over and over. It's much easier to fix errors when you have awareness of what the actual problem is and what needs to be done to improve. Students who do not have this capacity are the ones who come back the next week sounding exactly the same as they did the week before. No matter how good a lesson you might teach, if they don't go away with a conscious understanding of what to do to keep moving on (ie. the right kind of trial and improvement work), they go back to the same old habits.

If you want a student to experience a "feel" when you are not standing there to instigate it, you need to provide them with conscious understanding of how they can evoke it for themself, when practising alone. If this doesn't happen, half an hour a week (followed by a week of practise that involves returning to old habits) is not enough for the feel to be absorbed.

This thread is about many mind types, not about which one is better or lacking.

The mind that doesn't know if it's ready or not is lacking. Those who do well with less thought do enough- for their own ability level. Others do too little and do badly.

You persist to try to talk about them separately

While nobody can either eliminatate concious thought nor experimentation, what often happens is that the conscious thought is of poor quality. I'm not separating the two things, but pointing out what happens when genuine experimentation is not guided by suitable quality of thought, or prior experience. I am pointing out how limiting it is to attempt to favour one over the other- rather than appreciate the unity between the two that is required for optimal progress. That is precisely why I am stressing that those who seem to think little actually think aplenty- but quicker and better.

[lostinidlewonder]

If you want a student to experience a "feel" when you are not standing there to instigate it, you need to provide them with conscious understanding of how they can evoke it for themself, when practising alone.

But the student will still never play exactly as the teacher wants them to when doing it alone no matter how much you try to make them understand it during a lesson. The student needs to take what the teacher says, then go and test it out in their own way. You cannot make a student work exactly in a way you want by consciously transfering the knowledge, that is delusional teaching. When they return for the next lesson the teacher appraises the work and we move closer to the target.

The mind that doesn't know if it's ready or not is lacking. Those who do well with less thought do enough- for their own ability level. Others do too little and do badly.

This is not responding to what I was talking about and you have gone off on a tangent of your own. There was no need to quote me since what you wrote after that had no relevance to what I was talking about. Another wonderful tangent post by you.

While nobody can either eliminatate concious thought nor experimentation, what often happens is that the conscious thought is of poor quality. I'm not separating the two things, but pointing out what happens when genuine experimentation is not guided by suitable quality of thought, or prior experience. I am pointing out how limiting it is to attempt to favour one over the other- rather than appreciate the unity between the two that is required for optimal progress. That is precisely why I am stressing that those who seem to think little actually think aplenty- but quicker and better.

Good for you to point out something that no one else is interested in. Talking to yourself again.

[nyiregyhazi]

"But the student will still never play exactly as the teacher wants them to when doing it alone no matter how much you try to make them understand it during a lesson. The student needs to take what the teacher says, then go and test it out in their own way."

Yes. Who suggested otherwise? When I stated that it's about using conscious thought to guide a process of trial and improvement, does that somehow imply to you that there is no testing or trial involved? However convenient to the purpose of argument it might be to portray a polar extreme to me, I'm still arguing for balance between conscious thought and experiment- rather than impossibility of choosing one over the other and getting anywhere.


 "You cannot make a student work exactly in a way you want by consciously transfering the knowledge, that is delusional teaching. When they return for the next lesson the teacher appraises the work and we move closer to the target."
 
So that process involves zero conscious thought? Does a teacher work by saying "feel this", without giving a word of description and then leave the student to forget that feel? Or you just play them a passage and say "listen to how I play this (but don't think) and then go home and experiment" No- they show the student conscious processes to feel that over the whole week, so they can experiment around it. Otherwise no teaching is taking place. A teacher's biggest role is sculpt the thinking, to produce effective practise.

If you feel conscious thought can be eliminated, do you abide by that style of teaching? If not- why are you arguing against the evident role that it plays within experimentation? Could it be any more evident that successful work balances conscious ideas with experiments?

"This is not responding to what I was talking about and you have gone off on a tangent of your own. There was no need to quote me since what you wrote after that had no relevance to what I was talking about. Another wonderful tangent post by you."
 
It was specifically in response to your suggestion that thinking styles are just different. They are not. Some styles are less conducive to learning-particularly ones that involve having a go too hastily and certainly ones that don't involve conscious thought to improve, when this should occur. Others may be so engrossed in thinking that they do not receive enough sensory feedback. Hence the balance that is being referred to.

Seeing as you missed this- the thread had moved on to some rather interesting evidence about how people learn better from a range of avenues- not by restricting themself to their natural tendencies. If you're not interested in issues that pertain to that issue, feel free not to respond to them.


"Good for you to point out something that no one else is interested in. Talking to yourself again."

If you're not interested in the dialog of discussion, you don't have to reply at all. I am having the courtesy to address your points- although in return you appear to be hell-bent on tackling a stance I do not even hold.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes. Who suggested otherwise?

Not everything I say needs to be suggesting that someone suggested something, no need to feel like you need to work out who said what, something you tend to do when responding and is quite useless.

So that process involves zero conscious thought?

I am not interested in describing the "process" but rather talk generally how mind types may approach learning things. Much of your gibberish is trying to describe something that I am not interested in describing since I am only interested in discussing how different mind types work, not exact processes which are useless since they can only ever describe an individual and thus only is meant for when teaching the individual.

If you feel conscious thought can be eliminated, do you abide by that style of teaching?

I have not said this, this is your own making..

If not- why are you arguing against the evident role that it plays within experimentation? Could it be any more evident that successful work balances conscious ideas with experiments?

These are extensions into your own thinking and more tangenting.

It was specifically in response to your suggestion that thinking styles are just different. They are not.

No it was in response to your remark that "sensitive" players are different to those who are not so sensitive, but I don't really care about this point anymore, it is just wasting our time. Boring.

Seeing as you missed this- the thread had moved on to some rather interesting evidence about how people learn better from a range of avenues- not by restricting themself to their natural tendencies. If you're not interested in issues that pertain to that issue, feel free not to respond to them.

Evidence? Righteo.

If you're not interested in the dialog of discussion, you don't have to reply at all. I am having the courtesy to address your points- although in return you appear to be hell-bent on tackling a stance I do not even hold.

I am not interested really in discussion with you but I just like to point out how you can't even discuss what I am talking about without going off into a fantasy of your own makings.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not everything I say needs to be suggesting that someone suggested something, no need to feel like you need to work out who said what, something you tend to do when responding and is quite useless.

So what was your point pertaining to? I illustrated how trial and improvement cannot take place without conscious thought and stated over and over that both are vital. Why did you respond to my point by talking about a ludicrous situation where trial and error would not be happening- when I repeatedly made it abundantly clear that I am referring to a balance between BOTH elements? Your comment had no bearing on any of the points you were responding to and was seemingly directed against an imaginary argument that nobody ever put forth in this thread.

If you'd actually read anything I have been saying before responding, you wouldn't have been outlining a ludicrous situation in which individual experiments are eliminated. You'd have been addressing the balance referred to between conscious thought AND experimentation. Funnily enough, having conscious goals does not preclude experimentation. It should fuel it. A conscious awareness of what is needed is what makes experiments most useful- as evidenced by the extremely limited results that come for the overwhelming majority of self-learners. They don't understand what they need to look for in technique and quickly develop major limitations- due to have no awareness of either the "feel" they need to acquire or the simplest means of acquiring it. The best teaching needs to contribute both- as getting the "feel" in lessons is no use, unless the student actually knows how to trigger it for themself. If it gets lost, the student just returns to habit.

I've stated this already, but I'll state it again- the only way to learn effectively between lessons is to carry conscious awareness of ideas from them, that can give focus to personal experimentation.  Otherwise learning is restricted exclusively to the lessons. This is not a specific "process" but the most basic backdrop of how learning occurs outside of lessons and not just within them. If you disagree with that statement, can you please focus your next post against the words I have actually presented- not around the nonsensical idea of contriving a situation where experiments are to be eliminated.

[lostinidlewonder]

So what was your point pertaining to? I illustrated how trial and improvement cannot take place without conscious thought and stated over and over that both are vital. Why did you respond to my point by talking about a ludicrous situation where trial and error would not be happening- when I repeatedly made it abundantly clear that I am referring to a balance between BOTH elements? Your comment had no bearing on any of the points you were responding to and was seemingly directed against an imaginary argument that nobody ever put forth in this thread.

If you'd actually read anything I have been saying before responding, you wouldn't have been outlining a ludicrous situation in which individual experiments are eliminated. You'd have been addressing the balance referred to between conscious thought AND experimentation. Funnily enough, having conscious goals does not preclude experimentation. It should fuel it. A conscious awareness of what is needed is what makes experiments most useful- as evidenced by the extremely limited results that come for the overwhelming majority of self-learners. They don't understand what they need to look for in technique and quickly develop major limitations- due to have no awareness of either the "feel" they need to acquire or the simplest means of acquiring it. The best teaching needs to contribute both- as getting the "feel" in lessons is no use, unless the student actually knows how to trigger it for themself. If it gets lost, the student just returns to habit.

I've stated this already, but I'll state it again- the only way to learn effectively between lessons is to carry conscious awareness of ideas from them, that can give focus to personal experimentation.  Otherwise learning is restricted exclusively to the lessons. This is not a specific "process" but the most basic backdrop of how learning occurs outside of lessons and not just within them. If you disagree with that statement, can you please focus your next post against the words I have actually presented- not around the nonsensical idea of contriving a situation where experiments are to be eliminated.

Do you notice how you take one sentence of mine then start spewing forth rubbish that no one is interested in? You are wasting your time because I am not reading anything of it which is too bad for you because I love talking about piano but how you present yourself on pianostreet is really bad, and many other members feel the same way. Good on you, eventually you will be only talking to yourself.

You admitted to me in a personal post that you and another member here in pianostreet where banned from other forums for constantly arguing, looks like you are trying to same thing here but the moderators seem to put up with it for now. Would you like me to post that so everyone can see?

I feel it a waste of my time to constantly direct you to keep on topic, you constantly like to tangent threads which is wasting everyone's time but yourself. I use to debate in national competitions and our team won many of these competitions, the way in which you debate online can be describe with two words "CONSTANTLY TANGENTING". When debating with someone who constantly tangents around the place you end up never discussing anything that is really important. Maybe you feel like it is a competition to get the last quote in and have the last say. Woot! I got in the last say and the other person didn't respond, I win!  Yay good for you lol. Try not to debate with people and maybe you will have more constructive discussions. Say what you think not what you think other people are thinking, because you have been wrong almost all the time with me when you try that.

Why don't you stop quoting people and just talk on your own because you look really stupid quoting people and then going off in your own world.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can say what you like about tangents, but I have written nothing that does not pertain to the original topic or places that others have taken it. Because people happen to reference things that you do not personally have an interest in does not make them tangential.

Conversely, your last post is entirely tangential. Sorry, but I'm not interested in issues outside of the topic. However, if you want to discuss the balance between conscious thought and trial and error, I'd be happy to come back to it. Incidentally, this isn't a debating contest. I have no interest in debate for the sake of debate- and base opinions on evidence and logic. I don't pick a "side" and argue at all costs. My interest is in subjects and issues and and I am quite willing to change my mind about things when presented with a persuasive argument. I consider this to be an extremely interesting topic- and state my beliefs for no other reason than interest in it. If you're not interested in areas that the course of discussion leads to, feel free not to respond to them.

[lostinidlewonder]

You can say what you like about tangents

And I will constantly point out when you do this. Too many people take this bait you set and then the entire thread goes off no longer addressing the issue of the thread.

but I have written nothing that does not pertain to the original topic or places that others have taken it.

In your mind only. It has been pointed out several times where you tangent and go off into obscurity creating situations and arguing within your own creations.

Because people happen to reference things that you do not personally have an interest in does not make them tangential.

When you are being irrelevant it has nothing to do with my feelings/knowledge. If you quote me and then go off into irrelevance how can I respond to it? I don't want to respond to it with much thought because it has no relevance to what I was talking about or what you where trying to quote from me.

Conversely, your last post is entirely tangential.

It is highlighting how what you are trying to quoting and responding to has no relevance to the thread. It  also highlights critical points why your personality online takes on such a mindless debater type attitude so much so that it has got you banned from other forums before.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in issues outside of the topic.

Then stop extending peoples ideas into obscure ideas of your own making. Just talk about your own ideas and stop quoting people and moving off into irrelevant elaborations.

However, if you want to discuss the balance between conscious thought and trial and error

This is a making of your own device that there needs to be a BALANCE, I am not interested to talk about it because it means nothing to me and I have never brought it up, so just stop there and then you have a user telling you that they are not interested in it and I have said it more than once in this thread that it doesn't interest me but you persist. What do you expect as a response when you throw it back at the person the same thing that doesn't interest them? That is a rhetorical question no need to respond with paragraphs.

I have no interest in debate for the sake of debate- and base opinions on evidence and logic.

Really? Most of your posts on pianostreet are quoting other people and putting question to their statements and then asserting your own statements over the top of them, that is called debating.

My interest is in subjects and issues and and I am quite willing to change my mind about things when presented with a persuasive argument.

I do not post on pianostreet to change peoples minds, that serves no purpose for me because what do I get out of it? Nothing at all. I change the minds of my students daily and have done it with hundreds of individuals I have no need to change strangers minds over anything. So you should perhaps stop trying to think that people are here to change your mind over things, we merely share our ideas, this is a melting pot. So discuss your ideas but there is no need to quote people and constantly put question to their ideas.

I consider this to be an extremely interesting topic

Then create your own thread called "Balance of Conscious thought and Trial and Error" since it is irrelevant to give it the pages of writing you are doing here.

[faulty_damper]

I have not read the replies fully since I last posted, but I did take notice to the increase of passion this topic has inspired, so much so that the minutiae of egos gets the better of it and contribution to this thread has turned to bickering.

 

[keypeg]

Faulty Damper, I haven't been able to respond to your reply because of a huge work load that came up.  About whole language approach.  It is hard to tell whether your professor still taught reading at the primary grade after moving on to college teaching of teaching, how long she taught in the primary grade, and in what manner she implemented "whole language".  I also found that first started to understand what my profs were on about when got into the field myself, and sometimes I'm still "getting it".

The idea that phonics is the way to teach instead of whatever whole language approach may mean, is wrong.  Teaching the skill of reading has many sides.  I have taught reading at the entry level in the primary grades, at which point I also consulted specialists for students with problems on top of having learning disability and language training.  I then worked one-on-one privately, explored alternate education strategies, in particular the Waldorf method.  I have also worked with other languages, both for learning and for teaching, and looked at reading from that angle.

Phonics is one aspect of reading.  You learn to encode and decode sounds: cat, hat, sang vs. kit, hit, sing, song.  Useless for though, through, thought, bough, tough.  In the latter you recognize "ough" as a group (like seeing a CEG chord, or seeing any triad which you recognize as a chord before going further).  Additionally in reading:
- being read to as a preschooler as well as building a vocabulary makes a difference
- reading out loud often
- working with the encoding process (writing)
- matters of rhythm, tracking

While students need to understand the letters of the alphabet and common patterns such as that "When two vowels go a-walking / The first one goes a-talking" for long vowels, there is more to it than that.  Any approach that tries to be the only singular approach will fail.  "Whole language", when it is a free-for-all where you try to "express yourself" by inventing your own spelling, is dumb.  But when the idea is used creatively and flexibly to get at all sides of language learning, as part of what you do, it is fantastic.  At teachers college we get tools: rough ideas.  They are not meant to be applied in cookbook fashion.

Ok - to my chords which you likened to how you understand whole language approach.  When I began recognizing chords as a unit, it was not a hit and miss type of thing.  I had played for a while, deciphering the chords, and after a while perceived patterns.  After a while you no longer go "k... a..... t, ka... ka.... t,, cat".  You see "cat" as one unit instantly.  CEG in closed position can be recognized instantly as the major chord that starts on C.  It has a distinct appearance.

You also anticipate and associate.  If it is in C major, and there is a chord with no accidentals in closed position looking like a snowman with the bottom note on C, then you know it must be C and that it must be major.  In language reading we also anticipate.  

I think that actual problem comes if music is taught in a way of shortcuts.  If we are to feel our way in, play lots of music by following a recording while dancing along the score, don't learn our notes and chords, do tricks like "only intervals" --- then it is a problem.  If those kinds of tricks are being taught as a first and only way to get at reading music, then I agree that it resembles the shallow caricature of "whole language approach" that cropped up here and there.

[keypeg]

Food for thought: When you learn the alphabet, you learn to do the letter "d" this way:
You learn to trace this shape: o o o o o
and this shape: | | | | |
and you put together o and | in that order, to get d.  If you do it in the wrong order
you might get b.  add upside down and you get p and q

But nobody recognizes "d" in "dog" as "ball + stick".  Why not?  We could.  At some point
also we recognize "dog" as dog" because we've seen it so often.  It can be seen as a unit.
I don't know if there is some element of tracking involved, when in dyslexia "god" and
"bog" can be seen as the same thing.  But if you confuse p q d b, then it's not about
"sounding things out in sequence" but the orientation of the thing.

Likewise a familiar chord can be seen and heard in the inner ear as one harmonious sound
that is major.  It can happen.

[nyiregyhazi]

Lostinidlewonder, I'll keep this brief, because a tangent about tangents (the irony of which is evidently lost on you) does not interest me and I have no desire to prolong something that is so far away from the topic.

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

I am going to carry on posting in this interesting thread. If you are not interested in what I have to say, that does not make points (that are very clearly in reference to thinking styles) tangential and neither does it warrant a genuinely off-topic tangent on tangents. Feel free to ignore anything I write, or to respond with reference to the topic. However, if you wish to discuss tangents, I have nothing more to say on the matter.

[nyiregyhazi]

Food for thought: When you learn the alphabet, you learn to do the letter "d" this way:
You learn to trace this shape: o o o o o
and this shape: | | | | |
and you put together o and | in that order, to get d.  If you do it in the wrong order
you might get b.  add upside down and you get p and q

But nobody recognizes "d" in "dog" as "ball + stick".  Why not?  We could.  At some point
also we recognize "dog" as dog" because we've seen it so often.  It can be seen as a unit.
I don't know if there is some element of tracking involved, when in dyslexia "god" and
"bog" can be seen as the same thing.  But if you confuse p q d b, then it's not about
"sounding things out in sequence" but the orientation of the thing.

Likewise a familiar chord can be seen and heard in the inner ear as one harmonious sound
that is major.  It can happen.

This got me thinking plenty, and I did wonder at first. However, I don't honestly see either situation as being any different. To process a b, we must recognise the whole of the b. We don't guess. It's not a b until you've seen it all. If we leapt to assumptions, we might frequently mistake a "b" for an "l". Similarly, a basic C major triad is not processed as a C major chord, until each of the three notes has been processed. Logically, it cannot be processed without awareness of the individual parts- no matter how fleeting the awareness of the process might be to the conscious mind. The whole IS the sum of the parts. It's just that fluent readers process each part quicker- allowing them to perceive the combination of notes as a single thing.

This doesn't mean that it's the same as individually reading three notes one by one. A sense of spatial awareness almost certainly contributes to the instant recognition of all three components. There's a relativity. But there's no guess work. I don't see two of the notes and leap to the assumption that I might be onto a C major. If the top note is different, the whole thing is killed off in an instant. Recognition involves processing every detail. The issue is only one of speed.

I think there's a very notable distinction between words and music here. Words are so often repeated, that deduction is far more likely to be successful. However, music contains vastly more possible combinations. Even though some component parts may become familiar, good readers who can read highly chromatic writing cannot possibly be making too many deductions. You don't have enough information to make assumptions until you've already processed a suitable amount of information. Similarly, fluent readers of text (who can pronounce previously unknown words with high likelihood of accuracy) have a sense of constituent components- not just of bigger units that are memorised. Lesser readers (who depend too heavily on memory of whole words- rather than maintain a sense of how individual letters contribute to the sound) get stumped by new words.

Your post even made me wonder- perhaps dyslexic people would benefit from paying more attention to the constituent part of letters, rather than attempt to see the whole? If b and d are easily confused- what if they spend a time very consciously thinking about one as having the "ball" to the left and the other to the right? Do dyslexics struggle with the concept of left and right at all? I'd say that, while it's unlikely to be a terribly conscious process, good readers process most of the individual details of letters too- otherwise we would also be inclined to make regular errors based on false assumptions. The location of the ball is precisely what allows me distinguish between "bad" and "dab". Even if I don't stop to consciously think about which side it's on, my brain still notices. Logically my brain must determine the order of letters, to process the word. And to process which letter is which, my brain must also process the detail of where the ball is within the whole of the letter. However, synapses fire rapidly and I perceive it as if I just recognised the word straight off.


 It's just a very quick process, because the distinction was deeply internalised long ago. I expect I got confused plenty myself, as a child- until I spent enough time thinking about which side the ball on. I know that some dyslexics go on to become extremely good readers. Perhaps they just struggle with that initial process of remembering what distinguishes the difference- preventing the symbol from being internalised for instant recognition?

Personally, I do involve a great deal of intervallic thinking when teaching reading, but I'm increasingly realising that extremely sharp skills at pinpointing chords are heavily based on the most basic ability to pinpoint individual notes at extremely rapid speeds- not just relative comparisons. I think that both elements play an extremely important role.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just to expand upon that, words are much less variable than music. Picture any chord and you can make a minute change to any note of the chord, that changes everything about it- issues that a truly good reader should always spot. Whatever that change might be you still have something that could reasonably occur within a piece of music. Reading and misreading alike could typically make equal sense- especially in late romantic music onwards. Change any one letter of a word randomly and you have something that will almost certainly never need to be distinguished from the correct spelling. This allows much more scope for deduction and expectation in text. We know that the alternative is improbable- allowing a certain amount of assumption.

However, if musicians typically worked the same way, our errors would be both frequent and substantial. We can only assume AFTER processing detail- or major error is inevitable. Musicians need to have a precise eye for detail to read scores well, compared to what average text requires.

[keypeg]

I've been working round the clock almost, so I won't spend time on quotes but did read the responses.

I think that things come in stages.  In the beginning a certain person might start with ball and stick (b) and sound out c-a-t but after a while there is a recognizable unit.  Similarly, you work out the C chord in root position often enough and after a while it is also a recognizable unit.  We don't stay at the stage of working it out.  The C chord is specifically a snowman that has a stick (ledger line) at its torso (lowest whole note) and can be seen as one unit that way.  If you audiate, you might immediately hear the chord.  Of course a second process is going on: you have glanced at the key signature and seen that there are no accidentals and you have a treble clef.  But at the simplest level you can see a snowman in the way that you can see a "d".  To read well I think you have to shuttle between different kinds of awareness.

We can only assume AFTER processing detail- or major error is inevitable. Musicians need to have a precise eye for detail to read scores well, compared to what average text requires.

That is probably true.

[timothy42b]

I can't tell where this thread wandered to.

Note that I don't object to threads wandering;  however it is useful to be able to follow the path, and I certainly can't here!

To return to phonics for a moment, because I think it might be relevant to the learning styles discussion.

My memories of elementary school 50 years ago suggest that sounding out words and a strongly phonetic approach was the standard at the time.  I had no clue at the time there was any controversy.

In the late 70s I was in an MS program for Clinical Psychology, and did a year practicum in the local school system.  Then I was exposed to the idea that phonics was a religious issue. 

That's not figurative language.  For some reason certain branches of conservative Christianity had focused on phonics as the only way to teach reading.  Why that is I never understood.  There are issues that to me make sense to be semi-religious in nature, such as abortion or gay marriage; and others that don't, such as the distance to the moon, the age of the earth, anthropogenic global warming, and phonics.  But obviously I'm wrong!  And it made a difference dealing with parents, because when it is part of their religious structure it can be hard not to offend. 

Then fast forward to the early 90s when I had children of my own.  I expected them to learn to sound out words as a step in learning to read, but they didn't.  They all became fluent readers at an early age and clearly it was a whole language approach.  I'm sure they understood intellectually that you could sound out an unknown word;  I'm also just as sure they never drilled that skill enough to have it be reflexive.  They're in college now and don't seemed to have been harmed by missing that step.

Here's the possible relevance.  On the basis of my kids, I could conclude that phonetics is at best unnecessary, or even doesn't work.  Or, I could hypothesize that there are different learning styles, and some kids would benefit from one or the other teaching methodology.   

[faulty_damper]

Language learning occurs almost entirely through extrapolation of sounds and context.  We hear sound patterns and listen for sounds that repeat.  The sounds and patterns that are repeated are neurologically strengthened.  This learning of sounds is what allows babies (and fetuses) to distinguish one language from another and cause them to focus on their native tongue when they hear it (even if they haven't spoken a word yet or are still in the womb.)  It's this repetition of sound patterns that allow babies to grasp grammar.

The point I'm making is that babies will never learn language by being taught it.  They must first be exposed to the language, learn the sounds and grammar of the target language, and then vocalize what they have heard.

Whole language is like this.  But it requires that the target population is already English speaking without foreign accents or vernacular dialectic accents (ebonics, hillbilly, etc.)  In other words, the written words must look like the way it sounds.  This allows for ease of extrapolation.

4rlz.  Uderwiz we be ritin lik dis, fonetikly.
(For reals.  Otherwise, we would be writing like this: phonetically.)

But what if the student speaks with a vernacular or foreign accent?  And the teacher teaches in a contrasting accent (speaks fluent white English/academic English/etc)?  In this case, it makes it much more difficult for the target audience to learn through extrapolation because it sounds different from the way they learned to speak the language.  (This reminds me of Peggy Hill from the show, King of the Hill, where she teaches Spanish in her English accent.  Her students would never speak fluently if they only hear Spanish from her.)
  
Whole language approach is based on extrapolation.  It can work under ideal circumstances, but takes much longer than the more direct approach of teaching specific sounds matched to letters (fonetikly) and then the exceptions  like ph-, -ough, etc.  Direct instruction of phonics, compared to extrapolation, reduces the hindrance of foreign or vernacular accents, and is a much faster way to teach reading.

[timothy42b]

Unlike FD, I don't have definitive answers.

I know that good English readers do not read letter by letter or sound by sound.  They read in larger groupings, at least words and often sentences or more.

I know that good sight readers do not read note by note.  They read chords, phrases, and progressions.  They work on patterns, and the better the sightreader the larger the pattern.  I also know that good sightreaders are especially fluent at reading material similar to that which they have thoroughly learned, and stumble at material that is greatly different, even if the degree of difficulty is less.

I know that my own children did not pass through a systematic phonetics phase on the way to becoming fluent readers.  If you forced them to sound out words they would slow down and stumble.  But it is quite possible that other children do need that.  A lot of reading instruction is targeted at poor readers, for understandable reasons.  It seems logical that different strategies may apply to different groups.

Memory and reading (both kinds) seem linked.

Can you improve your memory with practice?  No.

Most people can memorize about 7 numbers (length of a phone number, not by coincidence).  Most people with intensive practise cannot increase that.  But then, most people can easily memorize a 30 digit number at sight with a few simple prememorization tricks.   

[keypeg]

Unlike FD, I don't have definitive answers.

Neither do I.  After decades of teaching reading, working in half a dozen languages with several scripts, and teaching some of them, I don't think it's that black and white.

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. 

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.

[faulty_damper]

Similarly, a basic C major triad is not processed as a C major chord, until each of the three notes has been processed. Logically, it cannot be processed without awareness of the individual parts- no matter how fleeting the awareness of the process might be to the conscious mind. The whole IS the sum of the parts. It's just that fluent readers process each part quicker- allowing them to perceive the combination of notes as a single thing.

This is what the research in reading has settled upon.  It's not egnuoh to mkae ausmuptoins eevn tohugh the trained mind anticipates what should cmoe nxet.  In order to read and understand the previous sentence, you must have processed it verbally/aurally, not just visually.  It would have been impossible to understand purely visually as words were deliberately spelled incorrectly. All letters within words are processed visually and then checked with the verbal and auditory processes.  In other words, other mental processes are used as a system of checking and making corrections alongside the visual process.

It may seem that reading is an instantaneous process but it is not.  The speed at which the mind processes words (which are separated by spaces) and letters (which are contained within those spaces) is determined by awareness of all constituent parts (the individual letters); monitoring for incorrect spellings (verbal/auditory checking), anticipation of subsequent words that should logically follow (grammatical rules and context), and practice of all the above.

[faulty_damper]

I know that good English readers do not read letter by letter or sound by sound.  They read in larger groupings, at least words and often sentences or more.

I know that good sight readers do not read note by note.  They read chords, phrases, and progressions.  They work on patterns, and the better the sightreader the larger the pattern.  I also know that good sightreaders are especially fluent at reading material similar to that which they have thoroughly learned, and stumble at material that is greatly different, even if the degree of difficulty is less.

In order to comprehend the whole, one must be aware of the parts of that whole.  H___s e______e o_ t___.  C__ y__ u_________ w___ I'__ w______?  Of course not.  You don't have any awareness of the rest of the letters contained in the sentence to understand it.  This is not to say it's impossible.  But in order for you to make out what I've written, you must recall possible combinations of words in a specific order to work out what I wrote.

I know that my own children did not pass through a systematic phonetics phase on the way to becoming fluent readers.  If you forced them to sound out words they would slow down and stumble.  But it is quite possible that other children do need that.  A lot of reading instruction is targeted at poor readers, for understandable reasons.  It seems logical that different strategies may apply to different groups.

Your children had to be aware of the associations between letters and sounds (phonetics) in order to read.  If you force anyone, even yourself, to sound out letters, they would slow down because that's exactly what you're asking them to do: slow down by sounding out.  Fluency in reading is not about slowing down but speeding up and relying on other mental processes to correct and comprehend meaning.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is what the research in reading has settled upon.  It's not egnuoh to mkae ausmuptoins eevn tohugh the trained mind anticipates what should cmoe nxet.  In order to read and understand the previous sentence, you must have processed it verbally/aurally, not just visually.

Well, I think the above illustrates that some level of assumption does come into it. The anagrams above are easy to decode almost at once, due to logical context. Even if they were outisde of the sentence, it could be argued that the brain can still process units- even if the letters are in slightly the wrong order. But, of course, that logically comes back to the necessity of processing individual letters- not instantly seeing units as one thing. I wonder whether those who leap straight to conceiving units of a few letters as one thing are worse at doing the re-ordering?

The interesting thing with regard to musical reading is that if we took the equivalent within music, it would be far more probable that things comparable to the recognisable misspellings above were entirely out of intent- because there are far more musically possible combinations of notes than there are combinations of letter that make words. Reading words is far easier, in that respect. Musicians cannot depend anywhere near as greatly upon expectation. In words, it can easily be used for corrections. However, if we used the same style of thinking to make instaneous corrections when reading scores, the vast majority of "corrections" would almost inevitably amount to making errors. Sometimes a missing accidental may be clear cut, but expectation is widely the enemy. An early publisher "corrected" the E flat to a D early in Chopin's 1st Ballade, to make a G minor chord (due to precisely this kind of expectation)- and he had plenty of time to think about it.

[nyiregyhazi]

I know that good sight readers do not read note by note.  They read chords, phrases, and progressions.  They work on patterns, and the better the sightreader the larger the pattern.

Yes, I don't think anyone disputes that. The issue is HOW they do this and what creates that ability. This is not mutually exclusive from the possibility that good readers have a much better eye for individual details. If anything, logic suggests that the ability to perceive wider units is the product of such an eye.

I also know that good sightreaders are especially fluent at reading material similar to that which they have thoroughly learned, and stumble at material that is greatly different, even if the degree of difficulty is less.

I have to say that I am baffled by this one. You could say that a simplistic piece in C major can more readily be played fluently than an equally simplistic piece with countless individual accidentals- but those accidentals are part of the reading difficulty! It's also true that a basic C major piece is hard to read, if you notate it in B sharp major. There's just more information to process.  I don't see any logic to suggest that the piece with no accidentals is easier simply because of having done the specific movements before. It's easier primarily because there is less information to process. Is this the kind of thing are you are referring to- when you speak of something being easier due to familiarity compared to another of lesser difficulty?

It makes sense that inexperienced pianists would be more greatly troubled by navigating unusual combinations of notes, but it makes no sense at all to suggest that good sightreaders stumble more at easier material which is different. The thing that defines good sightreaders is that they are perfectly capable of dealing with unfamiliar patterns and chromatic harmonies. They are not stuck in small numbers of learned patterns that can only be rattled off due to specific memory. If anything, I'd say that your description would be better applied to a sightreader of rather modest ability than to a good one.

I know that my own children did not pass through a systematic phonetics phase on the way to becoming fluent readers.  If you forced them to sound out words they would slow down and stumble.  But it is quite possible that other children do need that.  A lot of reading instruction is targeted at poor readers, for understandable reasons.  It seems logical that different strategies may apply to different groups.

I don't think it's about whether they do but how easily they could. It may not necessarily matter whether phonics are deduced by associating strings of letters with sounds, or whether they are learned a letter at a time (although I suspect most learn best using some of both). The example of "bad" vs "dab" is a key example for me. I think no more about these than I do about "tag". Every one registers as a single unit, from the first glance. "tag" is highly unique and the letters are pretty unmistakable. But "dab" and "bad" would be easily confused UNLESS the brain has fully processed the individual b and d, with minimal assumption (if any at all) . The fact I have no more awareness of processing individual letters in either "bad" or "dab" than in any other unit (yet never confuse the two) logically tells me that my brain is processing no shortage of individual detail, without my realising it. If I did not regularly process fine details, it is logically impossible that I could read those units as fast as more distinctively unique ones. I don't believe my brain assumes any more or less with those units than with any other three letter unit, that might seem to have been perceived as an immediate whole. The speed creates an illusion. It's not hard to see how some kids would be stumped by a whole reading approach- if they never got properly acquainted with the ability to distinguish every individual letter at the first glance.

I think this is extremely significant. It's for these reasons that I'm actually moving away from trying to prod students towards seeing bigger units and realising that the more easily they can read individual details, the more naturally they will evolve towards seeing the bigger picture. That doesn't mean I'm only going to focus on individual disconnected letters, but I'm becoming convinced that it's inadequate foundation in this respect that holds back most students. There's an old phrase about not seeing the forest for the trees, but personally I think it's as stupid as sounds on the surface- and not terribly deep. The forest IS a collection of trees. You become aware of a forest by first observing the presence of trees.

[keypeg]

Faulty, since you are writing so much about language, I would be interested in your response to what I wrote.  Another thing that I'd be interested is your practical application to these ideas and observations.  I found that theory was just a starting point.  When I began teaching and especially solving reading and writing problems, and also working with languages, those theories took on a much different shape.  I have found that anything I studied was only an approximation of what is real.  It is a distortion, because you have to simplify and generalize.  It would be the same if I wrote a treatise of what I found: it would not be the same.  The bottom line for me is what works.

[timothy42b]

I have to say that I am baffled by this one.

Sigh.  I know I'm going to regret this.


 

You could say that a simplistic piece in C major can more readily be played fluently than an equally simplistic piece with countless individual accidentals- but those accidentals are part of the reading difficulty! It's also true that a basic C major piece is hard to read, if you notate it in B sharp major. There's just more information to process.  I don't see any logic to suggest that the piece with no accidentals is easier simply because of having done the specific movements before. It's easier primarily because there is less information to process. Is this the kind of thing are you are referring to- when you speak of something being easier due to familiarity compared to another of lesser difficulty?

 

No, that's very far from what I mean.  I would almost accuse you of generating a straw man, but I guess you fundamentally disagree with me on the process of sightreading.

The difficulties you propose are unrelated to what I'm talking about.  Key to this is your statement,

There's just more information to process.

  And that would be correct, if sightreading were processing information. 

But IMO it is not, except in the most simple cases.

It is not processing, but RETRIEVAL of information.  It is retrieval of prememorized fragments from the repertoire bank in the brain.  Very familiar chords and rhythms are so because they've been played many times and encoded into memory.  When recognized, we retrieve them as if we'd practised them in our lesson piece, even the first time we see them.  And when we encounter patterns of greatly less difficulty that are novel to us, we often stumble. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Just coming back to a something from earlier in thread, I've just been realising how similar the maths issues is to something in reading music. I said before that when supposedly "slow" children are made to put blocks together over and over again, they learn nothing unless they actually start memorising the results- as the method itself is slow and cumbersome, with zero use for performing quick calculations in the real world.

I just realised how similar the old Every Good Boy Deserves Football etc. are. They easily promote method over KNOWING what notes are straight off. If a kid uses them to get to the point where they recognise any note on the stave straight off (without going through any words), they have done their job. But if the kid gets used to counting their way up a line/word at a time, they are lost in a worthlessly slow method that will never allow them to see bigger pieces as one. It reinforces an old belief that I have, that the only notes that should initially be learned are the spaces. It's not hard to truly know those (when you have no lines to remember) and from there simple relativity should quickly allow the lines to be commited equally to memory (as long as the spaces are truly known 100%, without any doubt).

I've been planning on writing a blog post about the various aspects of fluent music reading for some time. Although I've already planned out a lot stuff, this thread has been giving a lot of insights into what I need to be sure to cover in order to (hopefully) ensure that I come at it from enough angles to be relatively comprehensive. I think this maths analogy will be a very useful one.

[nyiregyhazi]

The difficulties you propose are unrelated to what I'm talking about.  Key to this is your statement,   And that would be correct, if sightreading were processing information.

 


I appreciate that I was speculating- but I did make a point of asking whether the issues I was describing were the kind of thing you were talking about. I didn't automatically assume. Could you be more specific about what you actually meant? While I'm not sure about the precise details, I do find it very hard to believe that anything can possibly justify the claim that it's in any way normal for good sightreaders to find unusual patterns harder in easy pieces, compared to more normal patterns in more difficult ones. That does not in any way describe my idea of even a half-decent sightreader.

It is not processing, but RETRIEVAL of information.  It is retrieval of prememorized fragments from the repertoire bank in the brain.  Very familiar chords and rhythms are so because they've been played many times and encoded into memory.

Yes, but good sightreaders read unfamiliar chords and combinations well. It's not memory of chunks so much as rapid usage of basic principles. The point is how many permutations there are- and the fact that good readers are not stumped by a "new" chord. This suggests to me that dwelling on the above can be self limiting. Good readers also need to be able to instantaneously read of a totally unfamiliar chord. If they cannot do so, they need to find a way of acquiring such an ability- or they cannot possibly be deemed a good reader. In my opinion, good readers have both the ability to instantly derive things from base principles and the ability to recognise chunks (due to the extent of their base principles).

I can't help but feel that your argument about how good sightreaders are (supposedly) stumped by unusual patterns has been assumed specifically in order to fill in a hole in the argument. Personally, I see no grounds for that observation- either as a generalisation or as a statement of fact. If your theory that it's primarily about memorising chunks hinges on that being assumed as truth, I think it's on very shaky ground. I agree entirely that this is one element- but it's an element that cannot exist without a good eye for detail.

Along these lines, you didn't deal with my point about processing "bad" vs. "dab" *(and let's add "dad" and "bab" too)- and the fact that good readers MUST process the fine details of individual letters- even to make the most basic recognition of these familiar patterns. How can you account for these- if individual details are not being processed within seeing chunks? I don't think the rational implications of this example can be overstated- especially as there are far more possibilities in music than in written syllables. It's fine for people who can already spot such details, but it strongly suggests that people who try to make this happen will have a hard time- unless they first process individual details to an exceedingly high level and with extreme speed. I'm not denying that memory is in bigger units too- but there's no way to acquire any such memory until you have developed memory for detail.