New teacher, new student, difficulty teaching to read

[pianorama]

Hi,

I've recently started teaching, and one of my students is a 6 year old girl. My first impression of her was that she seemed quite bright, and started of the first lesson for me with Twinkle Twinkle Little Star with her index finger, which she had learned from some sort of previous music teacher, who had taught her to play I've been led to believe by sight. I'm not sure of the details.

I've been starting her on the track of beginning to read music though, and she gets frustrated easily and I feel I'm missing out on the experience to help her efficiently. When I was young, I used the Alfred series for young beginners, so, out of having no other input, I started with the same series. Seemed fine to me! My second choice probably would have been Piano Adventures by (I think) Faber. We've gone through the first half a dozen or so pieces now, but learning them has been kind of slow and pretty difficult actually. I try to break everything up into little steps, but then it just seems like too much to remember sometimes. For example, there are simply notes on a page with no staff, and fingering telling you which fingers to press (the songs only use, three or two notes, on the black keys so far, but we're just starting to go beyond that into white keys now). Anyway, she'll get the order of the notes mixed up for example, playing on the sharps FGAGF instead of AGFGA. I've told her many times how to figure out which way to go by looking at which fingers it tells her to use, and she knows the numbers of the fingers well, but she can't put it all together. If I just play it for her though, she can copy me very quickly and end up playing the entire (very short) little song in a matter of a couple tries.

Is there anything I can do for this sort of student? Is there something I can do to better accommodate how she learns? I really do want to teach her how to read.

[fleetfingers]

I am not too experienced either. I've been teaching the same group of students consistently for almost two years. Before that, I picked up random students here and there sort of  "unofficially" when a parent asked me to. So, you can read my thoughts and take them for what you feel they're worth.

What I do is use the Suzuki 1 book to teach my beginning students pieces by rote. They LOVE to play them, and it sounds like your student would enjoy learning that way. Some teachers will say, "No, no, don't ever teach by rote!" but if you want to keep these kids interested, it's the best way to start, IMO. And at the same time, they are developing finger dexterity and learning to coordinate their hands.

After about 2 months, I start teaching them to read. I use the Edna Mae Burnman Step by Step books. I like them a lot. I follow the student's pace on reading, never moving on to the next thing until I am satisfied that they've mastered the step they're on. I keep teaching the pieces by rote out of Suzuki until the end of book 1. Once my older students had completed that book, they could read well enough to learn book 2 pieces by reading the notes {mostly} on their own. The younger ones are taking a little longer learning to read, but that is to be expected.

This is not my complete method. But, what I've tried to explain above is how I manage to keep kids interested (and develop their technique) while I teach them how to read without moving too quickly. It's just one idea. There are many approaches, but this one has worked well for me.

A question about the finger-reading you describe: Did you learn that way? I don't have any experience with such an approach, but I would think that it'd confuse the student and maybe even teach them to think about finger numbers when reading instead of note placement on the staff? Why not teach them to read notes on a staff right away? Not judging; just wondering.

[starstruck5]

I have only ever taught one beginner and so my experience is very limited.  The method I used did work well though. It may have been that this particular child was very bright, but as I say I have little experience. 

For the first lesson I dispensed with the idea of reading music altogether. Rather I asked the lad to place his right thumb on  Middle C and his second finger on D -I made it a game and asked him if he could play those notes with his eyes shut. This he was happy to do. I then called out out either C or D and we did this with the left hand. I then progressed to the whole of the basic five finger exercises, and finally he was playing them confidently,  very proud of the fact he could do so without looking!

I then introduced timing, written and counting and began teaching- how, instead of me telling him which notes to play, he could read them for himself - this made him immensley proud. Within 6 weeks he was playing basic pieces extremely confidently and well.  I can't remember for the life of me which Primary Text I used, but it didn't matter really.  He could have sailed through any of them. 


Not long after that, things changed and I could no longer teach - but I hope that this will at least offer a new teacher an alternative approach.

[pianorama]

Starstruck5 - thanks for the game idea - I tried it out last week to some success. I ran into a road block when she refused to close her eyes, though (I had her look aside instead). On the first lesson, did you ever have your student play combinations of notes?

and Fleetfingers - yes I did learn this way! I learned with the exact same method books. To me, I liked the idea because I thought it would take out the inital complexity of counting the placement of a note within 5 separate lines.

I'm having a truly difficult start with this girl! I definitely feel that I'm missing something that is not helping the situation, but she has a terrible reluctance to do anything I ask of her, and she has a bossy attitude about it. Sometimes she crawls all over the piano bench even if I've taken a half a minute break or so to stretch and won't sit down until I've asked her sternly more than once, and aie aie aie... There's a song as well that she refuses to practice because "it doesn't make sense" which I'm almost certain she means melodically - it doesn't sound like a song to her. It definitely frustrates me, but I think I'll move back in the book (since I did skip it initially, I caved!) and get her to play this week.

I think slowing down my thinking and going slower with her would help, but the problem is that I'm afraid she'll be too arrogant and be "bored" with my teaching - she has said on many occasions Ï know thatalready!" when I'm explaining something, even if she fully doesn't.

[lukebar]

Piano students tend to fall into the naturally visual or naturally aural categories. Sounds like you have one of the latter.

I am a HUGE advocate of teaching students to become excellent readers. In my opinion, it is the single most important skill I can give them IF I want them to become life-long music makers. Developing reading skills at the keyboard is something that starts day one.

HOWEVER!

You don't have to take a student who is an aural learner and try to make them into something else. Those first steps in music reading don't necessarily have to be repertoire based at all. Continue to teach her songs by rote that she ENJOYS playing. Develop her technique and artistry through those pieces. Then, separately, maybe even away from the keyboard entirely, start making the connections between dots on a page and the sounds that she has already grown to love.

Have her identify patterns of notes that are stepping up, skipping up, stepping up and down, etc. Get her to play those patterns on the piano. Work at memorizing select notes on the staff and using those notes to help figure out other notes. Maybe have her compose short little melodies and then figure out how to go about writing them down.

In other words, let her play pieces beyond her reading ability. For aural students, if they are limited to only playing music within their reading level, they will quickly become bored and want to quit. But don't give up on the reading. Students whose playing ability goes too far beyond their reading ability are tough to get back on track because they feel like it is too much of a step backwards to play "baby pieces" that they can actually read, even though their fingers are capable of much more.

Nurture all of the good qualities the student has, and work gradually to improve those that are lacking.

[starstruck5]

Starstruck5 - thanks for the game idea - I tried it out last week to some success. I ran into a road block when she refused to close her eyes, though (I had her look aside instead). On the first lesson, did you ever have your student play combinations of notes?

and Fleetfingers - yes I did learn this way! I learned with the exact same method books. To me, I liked the idea because I thought it would take out the inital complexity of counting the placement of a note within 5 separate lines.

I'm having a truly difficult start with this girl! I definitely feel that I'm missing something that is not helping the situation, but she has a terrible reluctance to do anything I ask of her, and she has a bossy attitude about it. Sometimes she crawls all over the piano bench even if I've taken a half a minute break or so to stretch and won't sit down until I've asked her sternly more than once, and aie aie aie... There's a song as well that she refuses to practice because "it doesn't make sense" which I'm almost certain she means melodically - it doesn't sound like a song to her. It definitely frustrates me, but I think I'll move back in the book (since I did skip it initially, I caved!) and get her to play this week.

I think slowing down my thinking and going slower with her would help, but the problem is that I'm afraid she'll be too arrogant and be "bored" with my teaching - she has said on many occasions Ï know thatalready!" when I'm explaining something, even if she fully doesn't.

It was just a question of speeding up my note calling as he became more confident. (This is of course prior to be there being any counting involved -When it was time to introduce this concept, I would say - for instance - C-2-3-4 -E-2 3 4 -G -2 3 4. This would only work of course for both hands in unison -then the next step was to introduce the metronome - another teacher might avoid that at all costs -  - none of this is an absolute method of course - because each child is different and respond to different direction - but the idea of giving confidence to play without looking at the keyboard is essential, and this boy was exceptionally bright and interested!   I was lucky in that the boys mother knew enough to carry on the drills - the only thing that threw me early on, was when he began deliberately playing different notes to the ones I called to see if I knew! I did, and he soon stopped. We didn't actually begin to work on playing different notes in each hand until he knew how to fluently read both clefs - but it wasn't a problem for him. It seems though that you a much more willful pupil.

[nyiregyhazi]

Piano students tend to fall into the naturally visual or naturally aural categories. Sounds like you have one of the latter.

While I agree with almost everything you say, I think that true aural learners are few and far between. There's a big difference between copying visually observed movements and playing by ear. It's just a different style of visual learning.

[keypeg]

While I agree with almost everything you say, I think that true aural learners are few and far between. There's a big difference between copying visually observed movements and playing by ear. It's just a different style of visual learning.

That doesn't make sense to me.  In my teaching and encountering people, I have met lots of aural learners.  The thing is that the piano is highly visual, and it tends to be presented visually.  Even intervals are taught as distances between keys instead of sounds.  That is the first thing that struck me when I first visited piano forums - it was so very visual.  It threw me for a loop.

[nyiregyhazi]

That doesn't make sense to me.  In my teaching and encountering people, I have met lots of aural learners.  The thing is that the piano is highly visual, and it tends to be presented visually.  Even intervals are taught as distances between keys instead of sounds.  That is the first thing that struck me when I first visited piano forums - it was so very visual.  It threw me for a loop.

My point is that outside student of situations where a student actually just listens, the overwhelming majority are not learning via aural means at all. If a student has to watch the teachers demonstration in order to play something, they are learning visually. Not a lot of rote learning is actually done aurally and neither does the most typical style of rote teaching do anything more to train the ear than reading music. Or at least, in most cases it's only the rhythm that is passed on aurally. If the notes are not found by ear, watching a demonstration and copying it no more trains the ear to recognise pitch than hearing yourself playing notes that you have read does.

[mcdiddy1]

My point is that outside student of situations where a student actually just listens, the overwhelming majority are not learning via aural means at all. If a student has to watch the teachers demonstration in order to play something, they are learning visually. Not a lot of rote learning is actually done aurally and neither does the most typical style of rote teaching do anything more to train the ear than reading music. Or at least, in most cases it's only the rhythm that is passed on aurally. If the notes are not found by ear, watching a demonstration and copying it no more trains the ear to recognize pitch than hearing yourself playing notes that you have read does.

I think your exactly right. I think there should always be a visual element in learning even if it is an aural art.  Pianist who are blind like other pianist need to learn kinesthetically and aural although they probably rely on these senses a great deal more. Teaching by rote is not simply based on teaching aurally but teaching the technical aspects of playing the instrument also just without the aspects of reading notation getting in the way. Also, you can get great more information than just rhythm by listening to a demonstration of music. There are situations where you can use rote teaching to recognize pitch. An example is if a teacher plays two notes , your ear must decide if they are  same or different, high or low, etc. If you can visually recognize notation and play they accurately than it proves you understand notation and it improves your sense pitch recognition minimally.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think your exactly right. I think there should always be a visual element in learning even if it is an aural art.  Pianist who are blind like other pianist need to learn kinesthetically and aural although they probably rely on these senses a great deal more. Teaching by rote is not simply based on teaching aurally but teaching the technical aspects of playing the instrument also just without the aspects of reading notation getting in the way.

Not that I wish to disagree altogether with the points you make there- but my point was largely a precautionary one about dangers of overusing the visual in rote-teaching. If it's primarily by visual demonstrations, then it doesn't necessarily train the ear any more than reading from a musical score. In other words- it can end up creating a student who is very lazy about reading but who has no advantage over one who reads well, when it comes to their respective listening skills. Far from training aurally, it can mean training equally visually but in a way that simply fails to instill the all important and transferable skills of reading. This can result in a "lazy" student who has no patience for reading.

As I say, I'm not looking to disagree altogether with what you say above. A balanced whole can include many things. However, I think it's important to be clear about the difference between true aural learning and a style of learning that is every bit as visual as reading- but which simply does not train any reading skills. Rote learning often trains neither the ear nor the reading skills.

[mcdiddy1]

Not that I wish to disagree altogether with the points you make there- but my point was largely a precautionary one about dangers of overusing the visual in rote-teaching. If it's primarily by visual demonstrations, then it doesn't necessarily train the ear any more than reading from a musical score. In other words- it can end up creating a student who is very lazy about reading but who has no advantage over one who reads well, when it comes to their respective listening skills. Far from training aurally, it can mean training equally visually but in a way that simply fails to instill the all important and transferable skills of reading. This can result in a "lazy" student who has no patience for reading.

As I say, I'm not looking to disagree altogether with what you say above. A balanced whole can include many things. However, I think it's important to be clear about the difference between true aural learning and a style of learning that is every bit as visual as reading- but which simply does not train any reading skills. Rote learning often trains neither the ear nor the reading skills.

I agree overuse of rote teaching can lead the student to develop more dependent attitude toward learning. I wouldn't necessarly say lazy but if the student does not experience success in reading or is taught how to do it, why would a student see the benefit in doing all that work.

I will say that rote learning is not intended to teach reading skills. Rather it helps reading skills because they student learns the technique of playing the instrument, the feel of playing it, and hears the results of it before the notation. That way when the notation is introduced the reading does not get in the way of the execution of the music. I think the purpose of rote teaching should be clear to the student and the teacher that it is not a replacement to reading music but mearly and aid to make reading easier and more logical.

[nyiregyhazi]

I will say that rote learning is not intended to teach reading skills. Rather it helps reading skills because they student learns the technique of playing the instrument, the feel of playing it, and hears the results of it before the notation. That way when the notation is introduced the reading does not get in the way of the execution of the music.

Yeah, I can see the possibility. I think the problem is that it's very hard to get a student to go from being able to do something to then actually reading the notes at they do so. One thing about rote learning is that it gives the student no reason to look at anything other than their hand. It's hard enough simply to persuade that student to stop looking at their hand while playing- nevermind to directly associate every individual note with a corresponding symbol on the page.

As I say, not that I wish to argue against rote-teaching altogether, but I do suspect that it  generally tends to put barriers in place rather than to help to remove any. One thing I think is that it's probably essential that a student is in the habit of reading the vast majority of the time- before it could serve to help rather than hinder.

[fleetfingers]

I will say that rote learning is not intended to teach reading skills. Rather it helps reading skills because they student learns the technique of playing the instrument, the feel of playing it, and hears the results of it before the notation. That way when the notation is introduced the reading does not get in the way of the execution of the music. I think the purpose of rote teaching should be clear to the student and the teacher that it is not a replacement to reading music but mearly and aid to make reading easier and more logical.

I have found that to be true. That's one reason I continue to teach by rote. This is always an interesting subject for me because I started with a Suzuki teacher and learned everything by rote for over three years - through book 5. So, I know firsthand the dangers that nyiregyhazi is talking about. I will say, though, that I learned both visually and aurally. My teacher would sit across the room on his own piano in a class of 4-5 kids. We learned the hands separately, but I had to repeat phrases by ear. When putting the hands together, I had to listen to how the parts coordinated and figure it out.

Maybe I wouldn't recommend that everyone teach by rote, because you have to know what to look for and how to keep the balance where it should be. I used to think that reading wasn't necessary - until I learned how to do it well. I will not deprive my students of developing that ability for anything. But if I can keep the balance where it should be, I prefer to have rote learning a part of my method, as I believe there are benefits to it.

[keypeg]

If a student has to watch the teachers demonstration in order to play something, they are learning visually.

Seriously?  I can't even imagine what that is like. Surely if someone demonstrates a piece you are listening to it, and not looking what the hands are doing in what spot.  It would be very hard to remember more than two or three movements before getting lost.  But melodies and chords naturally go somewhere so they are easy to remember.

[cjp_piano]

Pianorama -

I agree with Lukebar about capitalizing on her strengths. If she gets it quickly by watching/listening, then do it that way! THEN, after she can play, you show here the written representation and say, "This is how we show it on the page!"

From your other post, though, you described her as bossy, reluctant, uncooperative, etc. So there's probably more to it than just the reading/learning issue. Try to figure out a way to connect with her emotionally and personally. Does she like you? Make her laugh and have fun, play games, etc. Since she's good at copying you and likes it, start with that, allow her to explore and be creative. Make up your own songs!

Reading music will come once she's interested, motivated, and starts to understand basic concepts like rhythm, up/down, etc. Good luck!

[nyiregyhazi]

Seriously?  I can't even imagine what that is like. Surely if someone demonstrates a piece you are listening to it, and not looking what the hands are doing in what spot.  It would be very hard to remember more than two or three movements before getting lost.  But melodies and chords naturally go somewhere so they are easy to remember.

Perhaps you have a good ear, but you shouldn't assume all students find it easier to go on listening than watching. Just look at the phenomenon of the youtube "tutorial"- where people learn pieces by watching another person's hands. The level of aural learning would be close to zero, in most of those cases. The only way you can know that a student is learning aurally is if you make sure they cannot actually watch the notes.

Obvious everyone listens to some degree- including the massive percentage of the population who listen to music without even having relative pitch. The point is that the note-learning is not done this way, except in a very small number of cases. It's not about using a different sense for learning- but rather using the visual sense in a far less useful and transferable way than when actually reading the notes.

[keypeg]

I wouldn't take Youtube "tutorials" as a sign of how people are usually taught or how they usually learn.  How do you know for sure how people learn to play and whether they do it by closing of their ears and simply following hand movement?

[nyiregyhazi]

I wouldn't take Youtube "tutorials" as a sign of how people are usually taught or how they usually learn.  How do you know for sure how people learn to play and whether they do it by closing of their ears and simply following hand movement?

Firstly, the ambiguity is my very point. That's why it's a mistake to assume this makes for aural learning. No such thing can be assumed. However, regarding why I think they usually learn visually- I've worked with many beginners and experimented with getting them to close their eyes and attempt to play things back by ear. Some do better than others, but I've never yet encountered a student who found it "easy". Even those who get a good sense of adjacent notes will almost always struggle once you include so much as an interval of a third.

There's an obvious reason why even a learner that NLP might classify as aural would be more inclined to begin with visual learning. For a start, nobody is exclusively gravitated to one sense. Everyone uses a combination. Given that a beginner has no background in identifying notes based on pitch alone, it basically goes without saying that they are going to depend on their sense of sight (which is also the sense that must use to identify which note to play, in order to reproduce anything that was perceived aurally)- something that even the most aural learner will have developed to the full. Considering how much we depend on sight for navigation, even the most aurally based learner will be likely to gravitate towards looking at the notes that they have to move. It's more direct and its easier. The sight can easily identify every note in a slow melody. The ears cannot, until they are trained to do this.

An aural learner may be more inclined to draw parallels with pitch and develop that sense in this way, compared to a visual learner. Arguably, the same is true if they played from notation however. They still get to hear what they are doing. However, the average person is extremely unlikely to be pushed into true aural learning from typical rote-learning techniques. It's too easy to use sight and too difficult to be pushed into an alternative- unless sight is unavailable.

[keypeg]

I am mostly aural and tactile, but I would also have had problems if someone had told me to close my eyes.  The reason is that the keys is where the sound lives (for me).  But I also think that if piano is taught very visually without sound being brought into it, then that is not necessarily a good thing.  I have only taught theory, and when I did, I insisted on sound being part of it from the start.  For example, when we did intervals, it wasn't just how many semitones or piano keys they were spaced, but listening for the sound, having a personal reaction to how an interval felt to us etc.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am mostly aural and tactile, but I would also have had problems if someone had told me to close my eyes.  The reason is that the keys is where the sound lives (for me).  But I also think that if piano is taught very visually without sound being brought into it, then that is not necessarily a good thing.

I think you misunderstand my point. My point is that "aural learning" is often precisely that- a rote way of teaching visually. While it fails to train the visual skills of reading, rote teaching often does nothing more to promote true aural learning than reading does.  

[keypeg]

I think you misunderstand my point. My point is that "aural learning" is often precisely that- a rote way of teaching visually. While it fails to train the visual skills of reading, rote teaching often does nothing more to promote true aural learning than reading does.  

I just can't see most teachers saying "Watch my hands and do what I do."  Surely that is not how it is done?

[nyiregyhazi]

I just can't see most teachers saying "Watch my hands and do what I do."  Surely that is not how it is done?

? I already described in my above post why they wouldn't need to and why virtually every student will learn visually, regardless of whether the teacher instructs them to. If you disagree with the points I made in that post, could clarify the reasons?  If the student relies on the visual nature of seeing notes depressed before reproducing them, they are learning visually- just from a different visual stimulus to a notated score. The only way they are learning aurally is if they do not need a visual demonstration of what keys to press. 99% of rote teaching involves the student WATCHING the teacher depress notes, not having to go on listening to find pitches. Aside from rhythm, there is no true aural learning- unless the student is finding the pitches by listening to them alone.

[keypeg]

Here is where I am coming from.  I am a trained teacher and I hold two specializations, one of them in what is called "learning disabilities" but more aptly could be dealing with how people learn and process information.  The other is in second language learning.  I have learned that even when working one-on-one, we can get it wrong in terms of understanding how information is processed.  I have also seen that assumptions of how students learn and process things is often behind the difficulties that they have and actually impedes learning.  I.e. the teaching approaches can prevent a student form learning.  Therefore, when I see a statement of how people learn saying that it almost always tends to be one way, I carry a lot of doubt into that.   Additionally, I keep seeing a very visual approach to teaching piano in particular, and I have often thought that this visual approach will create a student's visual approach to piano.

I've been thinking about the teaching side.  The various teachers that I have encountered either privately or publicly have described approaches which did NOT involve playing something in front of a student, for that student to imitate visually.  They would do things like have a student explore the keyboard and recognize all the D's, play and recognize major and minor chords by both sound and feel, explore the instrument in various ways.  The student would use that familiarity and those explorations when learning music.  For example, if you have explored major and minor chords, and cadences, then when you play a simple piece with a melody accompanied by such chords, you are also carrying those patterns with you.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Therefore, when I see a statement of how people learn saying that it almost always tends to be one way, I carry a lot of doubt into that."

I'm just talking about a simple chain of logic that illustrates what REALLY happens in most of the cases where aural learning supposedly takes place. If the student can't find the notes without seeing the teacher play them, they are obviously learning visually. To say that they are learning aurally would simply be an erroneous categorisation. I cannot see any cause to dispute that.

 "Additionally, I keep seeing a very visual approach to teaching piano in particular, and I have often thought that this visual approach will create a student's visual approach to piano."

Indeed. That's what I'm saying myself. I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying students should learn more visually. I'm saying that the supposed solution of rote-teaching tends to provide equally visual learning but fails to instil reading skills.

"I've been thinking about the teaching side.  The various teachers that I have encountered either privately or publicly have described approaches which did NOT involve playing something in front of a student, for that student to imitate visually.  They would do things like have a student explore the keyboard and recognize all the D's, play and recognize major and minor chords by both sound and feel, explore the instrument in various ways."

Sure. I didn't say there's no such as thing as teaching that encourages aural explorations. I said that rote-learning is rarely aural learning. You seem to be assuming all kinds of other things, but my point is specific to rote-teaching and what senses are actually engaged by it.

[keypeg]

Got it.

[cjp_piano]

Aside from rhythm, there is no true aural learning- unless the student is finding the pitches by listening to them alone.

Actually rhythm is visual, too! They can see your hands moving up and down in rhythm, and the keys being pressing in rhythm.

But you're right and so is keypeg because you both agree that we use BOTH visual an aural even though certain people may be more visual or more aural. That being said, it's good to vary things and stimulate different parts of the brain by having the student not look and only hear. On the flip side, you can mute a keyboard and only look without hearing! Obviously when you say teaching by rote is mostly by watching, they are still hearing and listening. It would be much more difficult if the teacher was playing on a silent keyboard and the student had to repeat what was played with ONLY visual.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Actually rhythm is visual, too! They can see your hands moving up and down in rhythm, and the keys being pressing in rhythm."


"Obviously when you say teaching by rote is mostly by watching, they are still hearing and listening. It would be much more difficult if the teacher was playing on a silent keyboard and the student had to repeat what was played with ONLY visual."

Yes, fair points. What I mean is that in rote-teaching, rhythm is likely to be acquired primarily aurally and pitch is likely to be acquired primarily by visual means. These things certainly spill over to some level. I do wonder though- are those who pick things up the quickest doing so because of aural senses that would be lost on a silent keyboard? Or might they be equally good at it without hearing any sounds? Obviously it would be a far less satisfying experience, but I do wonder whether the typical student would necessarily be greatly affected by this- other than in terms of inevitably having less interest in doing such an exercise.

[mcdiddy1]

99% of rote teaching involves the student WATCHING the teacher depress notes, not having to go on listening to find pitches. Aside from rhythm, there is no true aural learning- unless the student is finding the pitches by listening to them alone.

But you're right and so is keypeg because you both agree that we use BOTH visual an aural even though certain people may be more visual or more aural. That being said, it's good to vary things and stimulate different parts of the brain by having the student not look and only hear. On the flip side, you can mute a keyboard and only look without hearing! Obviously when you say teaching by rote is mostly by watching, they are still hearing and listening. It would be much more difficult if the teacher was playing on a silent keyboard and the student had to repeat what was played with ONLY visual.

Heres my take on rote teaching. Tell me what you thing. I agree with cjp that is both visual an aural. It depends on how you structure the teaching.  For example, you could explain to a student you will only play 3 notes in different order and have the student imitate you without looking.  Also if the student were to watch the teacher play, the student is learning visually which keys to press and gets aural feedback of what the goal is to play. When the student plays and stops due to an error, it would maybe because the student realized he/she played the wrong key or the student remeber the aural goal from the teacher. Clearly there is aural learning going on in rote teaching. Just because you are watching someone play does not mean you shut off your hearing.

Rote teaching and ear training are two completely different areas. Rote teaching can have an element of ear training but you won't be able to learn to play just by relying on a teacher to play it for you.

 One example is i was observing a brass class in where the teacher had the students who where learning to play three distinct basic notes, C, d, e . He didn't tell the students what he was playing, he just had the students listen to him model playing the note and match it. Then he played various patterns of the three notes. He walked around the room and although some students could not see his fingers but  they recognized the pitches , how to create it on their instrument, and where able to produce the pattens without looking at the teacher. He went from teaching by rote to a form of ear training. My point is the purpose of rote teaching should be building technique ( the ability to move and manipulate sounds on the instrument) and then if the teacher chooses be used to ear train and produce aural learning. It has the potential to produce aural learning if like you said the teacher has the student not watch  the which keys depress.

Rote teaching provides the student with two forms of imformation: the visual, what to press and how to press it and the aural: what is sounds like when played correctly. Of course to a student who cannot hear the information would be strictally visual but this assuming we are talking about a student who hears the pitches produced from the instrument.

Having students play without sound can be very useful. I use it when teaching beginners all the time. Having students practice their fingering on the fallboard or having them finger a keyboard that is turned off can allow the student to play and concentrate on fingering, rhythm, and technique without getting wrapped up in getting everything right at once. I use it briefly in preparation of students learning a piece and I find it helps them a great deal when used correctly.

[vmackerman]

So...along this same line of discussion. I have a student who seems to fall into this category of leaning more to the aural side of learning. He always wants to hear a piece played first and then will try to play it. I've been insisting he to do more true sight-reading to trust his reading skills, rather than relying on hearing it. He knows the notes pretty well, I think he struggles some with the rhythm, but not tremendously so. The last two lessons have been fraught with tears of frustration as I continue to insist on having him read.

He is VERY good at memorizing pieces, but rushes to do that with all kinds of mistakes mingled in, which could be cured if he would just read the music, rather than watching his hands and trusting his memory....Any suggestions on alternative approaches or materials would be greatly appreciated.

[cjp_piano]

So...along this same line of discussion. I have a student who seems to fall into this category of leaning more to the aural side of learning. He always wants to hear a piece played first and then will try to play it. I've been insisting he to do more true sight-reading to trust his reading skills, rather than relying on hearing it. He knows the notes pretty well, I think he struggles some with the rhythm, but not tremendously so. The last two lessons have been fraught with tears of frustration as I continue to insist on having him read.

He is VERY good at memorizing pieces, but rushes to do that with all kinds of mistakes mingled in, which could be cured if he would just read the music, rather than watching his hands and trusting his memory....Any suggestions on alternative approaches or materials would be greatly appreciated.

I wouldn't try to force it. Capitalize on his strengths and gradually improve his weaknesses. Just have him read a little bit. For example, play for him and show him the first part, but then have him figure out the next note or measure or phrase or something by reading it.

[keypeg]

I am wondering whether my experience could be useful.  I did not go the normal route since I had no teacher.  I am aural, tactile, and have a mild kind of "dyslexia" in the sense that interpreting what I see left-right / up-down is hard.  I did, however, have a way of reading before I was taught about note names and such.  My reading had sound as its starting point.

Almost every time I read about an aural learner, that person is using memory, sounding it out, and then reading is this foreign second thing which seems to be taught from a visual starting point.  In fact, one teacher a few years ago described reading for beginners (1st year) this way:  You type out the notes, and after you type them out you get to hear how it sounds.  Imagine if a singer sang that way.  You have to know what sound the note on the page represents before you can produce it.  Are you going to go to the piano and type out the notes first every time?  When you type words - in fact - are you telling yourself the letters, or do you hear the letter-sounds and the words in your head?  (Seriously in fact - what do you guys visualize as you type?  Is it a sound, a picture, or both?)

Why can the teaching of reading not involve sound from the onset?  Why can't C,D,E sound like Do Re Mi?  A major chord - C major, G major, D major - all have the same quality.  You see, when I played, I reached for a sound.  When I looked at music, I heard a sound.  This idea of looking at your hands is foreign.  What do hands have to do with sound?  The sound and the notes are in the piano keys, not in the hands.  Could this be new territory?  Is it already being done?

[keypeg]

 One example is i was observing a brass class in where the teacher had the students who where learning to play three distinct basic notes, C, d, e . He didn't tell the students what he was playing, he just had the students listen to him model playing the note and match it. Then he played various patterns of the three notes. He walked around the room and although some students could not see his fingers but  they recognized the pitches , how to create it on their instrument, and where able to produce the pattens without looking at the teacher.

I don't play brass, but a brass player once explained it to me.  As I understand it, a lot of the pitches are not produced by fingering, but by what you are doing with your lips and breath.  The way it is produced is literally invisible.    As I understand it, "fingering" changes valves so that air passes differently, and you get a different set of notes (which you still have to produce with mouth and breath).

He went from teaching by rote to a form of ear training. My point is the purpose of rote teaching should be building technique ( the ability to move and manipulate sounds on the instrument) and then if the teacher chooses be used to ear train and produce aural learning.

Does that not by its very nature include sound, since we have to listen whether we are producing the right sound?  On piano, however, I think that what we learnt to listen for above all is the quality of the sound.

Having students play without sound can be very useful. I use it when teaching beginners all the time. Having students practice their fingering on the fallboard or having them finger a keyboard that is turned off can allow the student to play and concentrate on fingering, rhythm, and technique without getting wrapped up in getting everything right at once. I use it briefly in preparation of students learning a piece and I find it helps them a great deal when used correctly.

Being an ear person, the physical can be a weakness and I do see that, esp. for something beyond getting the right notes.  If like me you are very intent on sound, you can use awkward fingering or awkward motions to force the sound you are after, and then as you advance you are not able to produce more difficult works, or you cannot refine your playing even for simpler works.  You almost have to turn off your hearing and attend to how it feels and how it moves to balance it out.  That is where I am at personally in my own studies.

[mcdiddy1]

I don't play brass, but a brass player once explained it to me.  As I understand it, a lot of the pitches are not produced by fingering, but by what you are doing with your lips and breath.  The way it is produced is literally invisible.   

Yes this all true, but I am thinking about the implications of teaching by rote vs teaching by reading. If you put a book in front of a student and say produce this pitch and the student struggles with holding their instrument, fingering breath support embosure, posture and what the implications of notation then you are asking for a host of problems. The fact you allow the student from the beginning to get comfortable with manipulating their instrument, posture, etc and teach student to produce pitches by ear in the beginning at least sets the student on a better path for learning music. Learning how to listen to what is what is occuring around you musically is probably the one of the best foundational lessons you can learning in the beginning in my opinion.

He went from teaching by rote to a form of ear training. My point is the purpose of rote teaching should be building technique ( the ability to move and manipulate sounds on the instrument) and then if the teacher chooses be used to ear train and produce aural learning.

Does that not by its very nature include sound, since we have to listen whether we are producing the right sound?  On piano, however, I think that what we learnt to listen for above all is the quality of the sound.

  You have to know what sound the note on the page represents before you can produce it.  Are you going to go to the piano and type out the notes first every time?  When you type words - in fact - are you telling yourself the letters, or do you hear the letter-sounds and the words in your head?  (Seriously in fact - what do you guys visualize as you type?  Is it a sound, a picture, or both?)

Why can the teaching of reading not involve sound from the onset?  Why can't C,D,E sound like Do Re Mi?  A major chord - C major, G major, D major - all have the same quality.  You see, when I played, I reached for a sound.  When I looked at music, I heard a sound.  This idea of looking at your hands is foreign.  What do hands have to do with sound?  The sound and the notes are in the piano keys, not in the hands.  Could this be new territory?  Is it already being done?
[/quote]

Your talking about sight-reading using audiation. You can hear the pitches in your head without playing. That is pretty common for people with a large amount of musical experience. Just like many examples of how people read, you could put the a couple letters of a word and people will know what you are saying because we read patterns we have seen over and over again. The same way when you look at music, you already have the experiences that allow you to anticipate what comes next because at a simplistic level the patterns can be easily predicable the more advance you get. When students look down , they are focused on getting a result and looking to make sure they are using the right fingers, playing the right key etc.. It's a generally a poor habit to stare at the fingers but if they student can hear the pitches in their head they would do better. However they generally do not have the skills to do that yet and have to build that skill.

[keypeg]

That is pretty common for people with a large amount of musical experience.

I was 8 years old.  We had no music in school other than singing the usual songs at Christmas.  I had no lessons, no teacher, and no musicians in the family.  That is about as inexperienced as you can get.

[mcdiddy1]

I was 8 years old.  We had no music in school other than singing the usual songs at Christmas.  I had no lessons, no teacher, and no musicians in the family.  That is about as inexperienced as you can get.

People are not photocopies so some people have more gifts than others and you were probably one of these with that gift. Having the ability to audiate doesn't translate into playing the instrument. Just because you do not have formal lessons or surrounded by classical music doe not mean you do not know anything about music.

Music is every way a part our very humanity so we do musical things all the time. When we speak there is musical pitches, when we clap, repeat and imitate we are doing musical things as well. I would venture to say if you were singing Christmas tunes especially in tune, you unconsciously are making music than you thought you knew even if it wasn't in a formal, lessons way.

When we go to music lessons, it is not because we never participated in music or understand some elements of it but we want to develop skills to hone the skills we already have. Some kids, ( in my opinion most) kids do not make the musical connections or the vocal facilities to sing on pitch. One visit to a kindergarden music class room can confirm that.

[keypeg]

You have a point McDiddy, and one I have often thought about.  However, I don't know to which degree my abilities are due to early training.  When I was in a primary grade, one teacher spent that year heavily pushing movable Do solfege with the old fashioned board (early 1960's - nothing fancy out there yet).  My first training was heavily oral and along the framework of major and natural minor scales.  The exercises and the way we sang them with degrees 3&4, 7&8 closer than a semitone, also gave a feel for functions.  That is to say, we sang particular sequences which I now recognize in my music theory work.

When I first got to a piano I knew how to find the tonic (note above the last sharp, for example).  The first music I saw were Clementi sonatinas and intermediate Czerny (those were the books handed down to me).  These are very heavily into the kinds of scales that I had learned.  Therefore when I deciphered my first sonatinas, I simply sang my way up and down the written notes using that mental aural map I already had.  I knew where C was on the piano and I figured it out from there.  Within a certain time period, audiation developed from that.  I began with sound through my training, whatever my natural gifts might have been.  I am thinking that it might at least be worth looking at.  As a teacher in other fields, I always like looking at new possibilities even while holding on to tried and true things I already know of.

[mcdiddy1]

You have a point McDiddy, and one I have often thought about.  However, I don't know to which degree my abilities are due to early training.  When I was in a primary grade, one teacher spent that year heavily pushing movable Do solfege with the old fashioned board (early 1960's - nothing fancy out there yet).  My first training was heavily oral and along the framework of major and natural minor scales.  The exercises and the way we sang them with degrees 3&4, 7&8 closer than a semitone, also gave a feel for functions.  That is to say, we sang particular sequences which I now recognize in my music theory work.

Nice. Sounds like you where able to a get a strong grounding in aural training.I think having a foundation like that will help in further musical development, especially with minor scales which I think are over looked generally in the lower grades

[dcstudio]

So...along this same line of discussion. I have a student who seems to fall into this category of leaning more to the aural side of learning. He always wants to hear a piece played first and then will try to play it. I've been insisting he to do more true sight-reading to trust his reading skills, rather than relying on hearing it. He knows the notes pretty well, I think he struggles some with the rhythm, but not tremendously so. The last two lessons have been fraught with tears of frustration as I continue to insist on having him read.

He is VERY good at memorizing pieces, but rushes to do that with all kinds of mistakes mingled in, which could be cured if he would just read the music, rather than watching his hands and trusting his memory....Any suggestions on alternative approaches or materials would be greatly appreciated.

I know how you feel--I have been there.   Usually, it is the parents who complain that their child is not "reading" music.  Many times the parents don't particularly understand what that means...but they like to say it anyway.
I am about as formally trained as they come...and my daughter has had no interest in reading.  She can however render just about anything she hears.  After teaching piano for 20+ years, I cannot deny that I have not struggled with tears of frustration in trying to teach her how to "sight-read." So about a year ago--I let it go and encouraged her play things the way she wanted to.

This year she joined band and took up the French horn.  Well, guess what?  that wonderful band teacher has inspired her to learn to read!!  Now she is starting to read her band music at the piano.  She also is figuring out the bass clef--on her own.

My point is--my daughter plays every day and she is quite impressive for an 11 year old.  Many pianists are completely unable--or unwilling--to play "by ear."  It is thought of as a "lesser" skill than reading--when actually, in my experience, most pianists struggle much more with "ear skills" than with "reading skills."  Just sit in on any sight-singing/ear training class in music school and listen to the piano players groan...

everyone learns differently...don't sweat it.

[keypeg]

Nice. Sounds like you where able to a get a strong grounding in aural training.I think having a foundation like that will help in further musical development, especially with minor scales which I think are over looked generally in the lower grades

What I got was definitely a fluke, but I'm thinking that maybe something can be learned from what happened.  It did create some major hiccups which are being overcome these days, but at least it gave me that.

[fleetfingers]

and Fleetfingers - yes I did learn this way! I learned with the exact same method books. To me, I liked the idea because I thought it would take out the inital complexity of counting the placement of a note within 5 separate lines.

I figured that was the reason to do it that way, but I just wonder about creating a habit for the student to look at finger numbers instead of where the note is. I've had a few students come to me who were reading finger numbers, and they had to ask me where to place their hands at the start. It's such a bad habit, I seriously don't know how to fix it. One girl who did that moved away after 2 months, and I was so relieved, because I didn't know how to get her away from that kind of thinking.

To stay away from complexity, I introduce one or two notes at a time and keep the student sight reading things with only the notes they've learned and mastered. If they have to think too long about what note it is, it's too complex. They should be able to find it rather quickly. If that means they play songs with middle C and D only, so be it. As long as it's easy for them to know what note it is and play it with the correct time value.

[mcdiddy1]

I figured that was the reason to do it that way, but I just wonder about creating a habit for the student to look at finger numbers instead of where the note is. I've had a few students come to me who were reading finger numbers, and they had to ask me where to place their hands at the start. It's such a bad habit, I seriously don't know how to fix it. One girl who did that moved away after 2 months, and I was so relieved, because I didn't know how to get her away from that kind of thinking.

To stay away from complexity, I introduce one or two notes at a time and keep the student sight reading things with only the notes they've learned and mastered. If they have to think too long about what note it is, it's too complex. They should be able to find it rather quickly. If that means they play songs with middle C and D only, so be it. As long as it's easy for them to know what note it is and play it with the correct time value.

What you tried having your students say the note names out loud with you before they play. I find it is usually simply because they are insecure with reading note names. Also you could try teaching them to read intervals. If there is a piece that starts on C you could teach them as long as they ready the intervals correctly you can play the same piece in G or in a minor  and disguise it as a lesson in transposition. I think they most powerful thing you can do is after they had some experience playing the piece, you can erase or white out all the fingering of what they learned and have them go back and play it. If they ask you to place their hands on where to start, just show them the steps you take to figure it out: know the note name, located the note on the keyboard, each finger gets a key etc... You may have to go back and re-teach and review constantly but you can certainly change students ability to read if you teach them to think for themselves.

[keypeg]

I am curious about the interval part.  Do you simply teach it a pianistic way in the beginning, such as "skip a note" (as in CE) - "two adjacent lines = a skip" (G and B in the treble clef), the "go up 3, down 2" kind of thing?

The one time that I taught theory rudiments, we went into what an interval actually is as opposed to what it is called.   CE, which could also be CFb or CDx can be *called* major third, diminished fourth, or augmented second.  In the score we would see respectively: note heads in 2 spaces (treble clef, C5 E5), in a space and on a line showing a fourth (CFb), or in a space and a line looking like a second (CDx).  This is the naming part. ------- However, we will always see a white key with a skipped white key and another white key, and the same number of half steps.  We will always hear the same type of happy car-horn sound of what we commonly call "major third".  This second is what an interval *is* as opposed to what it is called.

Whatever you set up in the beginning when music is simple will work, but if we get the concept wrong, will there be confusion later on?  The idea of what an interval is became important when I taught it.  Right now in my own lessons I'm being given a lot of romantic era music to look at, and we get tons of diminished chords where often a minor third looks like a second or a fourth (like Cdx and CFb).

(Just something that popped into my head).

[mcdiddy1]

I am curious about the interval part.  Do you simply teach it a pianistic way in the beginning, such as "skip a note" (as in CE) - "two adjacent lines = a skip" (G and B in the treble clef), the "go up 3, down 2" kind of thing?

The one time that I taught theory rudiments, we went into what an interval actually is as opposed to what it is called.   CE, which could also be CFb or CDx can be *called* major third, diminished fourth, or augmented second.  In the score we would see respectively: note heads in 2 spaces (treble clef, C5 E5), in a space and on a line showing a fourth (CFb), or in a space and a line looking like a second (CDx).  This is the naming part. ------- However, we will always see a white key with a skipped white key and another white key, and the same number of half steps.  We will always hear the same type of happy car-horn sound of what we commonly call "major third".  This second is what an interval *is* as opposed to what it is called.

Whatever you set up in the beginning when music is simple will work, but if we get the concept wrong, will there be confusion later on?  The idea of what an interval is became important when I taught it.  Right now in my own lessons I'm being given a lot of romantic era music to look at, and we get tons of diminished chords where often a minor third looks like a second or a fourth (like Cdx and CFb).

(Just something that popped into my head).

Well this is teaching the very young basics of intervalic reading, not necessarily labeling the type of intervals. This teaching is for the basic introduction of note reading where there is nothing larger than the skip of a third. So the reading is either step motion or it is a skip. Once they get comfortable with seeing thing then they can be introduced to larger leaps. I would avoid labeling it a third or second so it would not contradict the more advance labeling of augmented, minor, major thirds, counting half-steps etc.

[keypeg]

Well this is teaching the very young basics of intervalic reading, not necessarily labeling the type of intervals. This teaching is for the basic introduction of note reading where there is nothing larger than the skip of a third. So the reading is either step motion or it is a skip. Once they get comfortable with seeing thing then they can be introduced to larger leaps. I would avoid labeling it a third or second so it would not contradict the more advance labeling of augmented, minor, major thirds, counting half-steps etc.

Thank you.  That is exactly what I was looking for.  It makes sense.

[cjp_piano]

I figured that was the reason to do it that way, but I just wonder about creating a habit for the student to look at finger numbers instead of where the note is. I've had a few students come to me who were reading finger numbers, and they had to ask me where to place their hands at the start. It's such a bad habit, I seriously don't know how to fix it. One girl who did that moved away after 2 months, and I was so relieved, because I didn't know how to get her away from that kind of thinking.

To stay away from complexity, I introduce one or two notes at a time and keep the student sight reading things with only the notes they've learned and mastered. If they have to think too long about what note it is, it's too complex. They should be able to find it rather quickly. If that means they play songs with middle C and D only, so be it. As long as it's easy for them to know what note it is and play it with the correct time value.

Were ALL the finger numbers written in? I understand the first finger number given, and then they read intervals. But if they didn't even know where the first note was on the piano, this is bad!

[fleetfingers]

Were ALL the finger numbers written in? I understand the first finger number given, and then they read intervals. But if they didn't even know where the first note was on the piano, this is bad!

Yes! It WAS bad! Before she came to me, she hadn't been taking lessons for long - about 4 months - and she brought her John Thompson book with her. Yep, that was my first lesson in "make sure your student isn't reading finger numbers". Every note had a number above it.

What you tried having your students say the note names out loud with you before they play. I find it is usually simply because they are insecure with reading note names. Also you could try teaching them to read intervals. If there is a piece that starts on C you could teach them as long as they ready the intervals correctly you can play the same piece in G or in a minor  and disguise it as a lesson in transposition. I think they most powerful thing you can do is after they had some experience playing the piece, you can erase or white out all the fingering of what they learned and have them go back and play it. If they ask you to place their hands on where to start, just show them the steps you take to figure it out: know the note name, located the note on the keyboard, each finger gets a key etc... You may have to go back and re-teach and review constantly but you can certainly change students ability to read if you teach them to think for themselves.

Great ideas! The thing is, she knew all of the note names. She had a notespeller workbook that she would do with her previous teacher and she could write out the note names easily. But there was a disconnect when it came to playing them on the piano. You are right about teaching the steps and skips (or intervals). I was going to do something like that, but she moved.

If I erased the finger numbers, I can guarantee she would have been completely lost!

I'm finding that I prefer brand new students. My brain works methodically, so I do tend to teach in a linear way. It may not be the best, it's just what I know how to do. Like with this student, who knows the names of the notes but does not think about letters when sight reading, only which finger to play in a fixed position. It is so hard to change their approach! I know that they may not think about music the way I do, but I have to get them to a place where my teaching makes sense to them and we both know what's going on. It's not just a matter of fixing habits that they have when playing or reading, but also habits in how they receive instruction. What you mention about talking them through the process of finding the starting note on their own - I don't think her previous teacher would do that. I think she would just tell her. At least, it seemed the student had come to expect that kind of direction.

[nyiregyhazi]

I would avoid labeling it a third or second so it would not contradict the more advance labeling of augmented, minor, major thirds, counting half-steps etc.

I think this is somewhat over-cautious. The distance between letters (prior to accidentals) is specifically what defines the numerical part of an interval. That's why harmonic minors technically feature an augmented 2nd- even though the interval as seen on the piano would more normally be labelled a minor third. Because the letters are adjacent, it's correctly classified as a type of 2nd. There's no need to avoid anything. To refer to a 2nd or 3rd etc. is merely to fail to be more specific. It could never be inaccurate (provided that it correctly reflects the distance between letters) and I see no reason why it would mislead.

[keypeg]

I think this is somewhat over-cautious. The distance between letters (prior to accidentals) is specifically what defines the numerical part of an interval.

There are two distinct aspects of intervals.  One is what they are, sound like, and the keys you press on the piano.  There is a distinctive sound to what we hear when we press the two white keys on the outside of the black keys, whether we call that sound "major third", "diminished 4th", or "augmented second".  There are specific piano keys to press and this is unchanging.  There is a specific number of semitones involved and this is also unchanging.  This is what an interval actually is.

The second aspect involves the naming.   We count how many letters are involved and so we have a major 3rd for CE because C,D,E are 3 letters, an augmented 2nd for CDx, and a diminished 4th for CFb.  The sound these produce is the same, and the piano keys are the same.  It is important to know the difference.

Niereghazi, you stated previously that a pre-grade 1 student should be able to sight read keeping in mind  key signature, time signature etc. (per the Guhl list I gave).  I'm wondering whether perhaps you teach older students rather than young children. (?)  I cannot see either of the things that you recommend for young children.  They are just learning their alphabet and how to do math up to ten at age 6.  They are not yet abstract thinkers.  I cannot see a child that young contending with "major third" let alone "diminished fourth".  

[keypeg]

I see no reason why it would mislead.

Because people memorize rules and follow instructions correctly without ever understanding what it is about in terms of sound and music.    Sure, you can follow the score and play the correct notes, and you can know intellectually about "enharmonics" - but even that can be confusing if you have not grasped the actual concept of what an interval really is.