essential learning requirements for beginning students

[wallem19122e]

Okay...here goes.
This is a topic that will no doubt give rise to varying opinions.

I am a public educator, as well as a piano teacher.
In public ed. were are guided by specific learning targets or standards.
Does anyone know of such a thing existing in the world of piano pedagogy?

I am most interested with what people feel are the essential things that early beginners MUST know in order to start making music. Is there a "right" chronology to what skills must be taught?

ie how to sit at the keyboard, high/low sounds, notes, 5 finger patterns/chords......
Thank you in advance for your response

[landorrano]

Hi Wallem

This strikes me as a supremely interesting topic.  But I think that you ought to speak more about your situation.  You are talking about "piano lessons"?  Or a kind of general music class in a school?  How old are the kids ?  What country are you in ?  Is this a theoretical question?  Or have you a class to teach?  Or are you preparing a proposition for a school?

One little comment, however.  Perhaps beside the point, but something that you wrote caught my attention:

what people feel are the essential things that early beginners MUST know in order to start making music.

I just want to say that all little kids are already making music.  They sing, they clap, they danse, they chant.  This is not nothing.

[keyboardclass]

I am also a public educator, as well as a piano teacher and remember the days when there weren't any targets - you just got on and did the job.  Targets are for dummies who can't (or won't) do their job.  They also give politicians statistics to cherry pick at election time.

[keypeg]

I am also a public educator, as well as a piano teacher and remember the days when there weren't any targets - you just got on and did the job.  Targets are for dummies who can't (or won't) do their job.  They also give politicians statistics to cherry pick at election time.

I assumed,  when I read it, that "targets" were another word for the old aims and objectives that we were required to put into our lesson plans.  Like you teach grade 1 math and by the end of the unit the kids know their number 1 - 20, understand how to write them, what they represent, understand what addition and subtraction are, and will be able to add up to 10 + 10.  And then you plan your lessons around that.  The aims and objectives format was in place 30 years ago, but I have a suspicion that "target" means something else.  Does it?

[keyboardclass]

All children have targets, all teachers have targets - it's extra rubbish written on pieces of paper and gets in the way of learning.  Aims and objectives go without saying - maybe that's what the OP meant.

[keypeg]

Wallem, wouldn't what students need to know in order to make music, and making music coincide rather than happening one after another?  For example, a beginner needs to know how to sit at the piano, how to produce a note on the keys, and will probably get an idea of recognizing some notes such as D between two black keys, or notes that go higher and lower.    But in the process he is probably being shown some things that involve making music.  Like if you play C, then D, then E, you have begun "Frere Jacques".  If you strike CD together to make an ugly sound, that's part of music.

So teachers, do you have some basic fundamental "firsts" and do you mesh these with music generally speaking?

Addendum:
Essentially I am not a music teacher, but I have taught otherwise both privately and in the classroom.  In classroom teaching you need a more structured plan, in part because you're teaching a group, and in part because usually outside people such as school boards have an agenda.  In one-on-one you can respond to where that student is at on any given day, and "customize" according to his personal progress.  Teaching is more flexible and fluid.  You should still have a basic idea of your subject, what needs to be known in order to support something later that needs to be known.  But the lesson can evolve and change according to what is happening at the moment.

[nyiregyhazi]

All children have targets, all teachers have targets - it's extra rubbish written on pieces of paper and gets in the way of learning.  Aims and objectives go without saying - maybe that's what the OP meant.

There are "targets" and there are targets. If the word has been sullied for you by bastardisations, that does not mean that the word has evolved a new meaning outright. Targets are what you aim for. Just because education authorities have meaningless targets, it does not mean that targets are no longer meaningful- eg. the ability to read 5 finger music fluently and to execute basic rhythms.

Personally, I'm realising that targets are very important- outside of just getting the student to play the piece well. For example, they should be able to say every letter out loud, without hesitation. Currently, I'm becoming progressively drawn to specific targets- in order to ensure rounded development. It's not just about whether they manage to play current pieces well. Can they identify every interval in the piece at once- or can they just remember where their fingers go? If the teacher is methodical about a whole range of requirements, you can see exactly what is going on in the student's mind- and get a better idea of exactly where their strengths and weaknesses lie.

[wallem19122e]

keyboardclass


Let me also express my disgust for politicians who use education as a platform. Particularily for those who have never set foot in a classroom to teach.

As an educator I am sure you are familiar with Understanding By Design

Perhaps this is more what I am refering to in regards to this pedagogical question.

Rather than simply saying that "aims and objectives go without saying," we as educators should be questioning whether or not we are providing students with learning opportunities that are grounded in meaningful contexts.

I am very much a believer in constructivism and students coming to their own best conclusions about things. However, a pitfall can be that we feel like we are doing an excellent job if the
student(s) seem engaged in an activity. In reality it is simply a "fun activity," and no long term, meaning scaffolding has occured.

Should we base our teaching on students' existing ideas rather than on learning objectives?
Or should we honor and facilitate students' attempts to think for themselves while still remaining faithful to certain ideas?

If you believe the first...fine. But for those piano teachers that believe that there should be core ideas to help facilitate and guide learning, I am curious what you think those are.
*note: I am particularily thinking of younger beginning students here:)
Thanks again

[wallem19122e]

Thank you for the post nyiregyhazi.
Well said.
I believe this is what I am getting at.
Certain, core connecting ideas that aid us in a more well planned, methodical approach to teaching.

[keyboardclass]

 

[keyboardclass]

Rather than simply saying that "aims and objectives go without saying," we as educators should be questioning whether or not we are providing students with learning opportunities that are grounded in meaningful contexts.

Surely that does go without saying?  It's what makes a good teacher.  Now you might say 'Well, let's teach that to teachers!'  No.., you can lead horses to water but you can't get them to wonder about its physical properties and anyway, finding a meaningful context for Minuet in G may be a little difficult! 

Check out EPTA UK's Certificate in Piano Pedagogy (CPPed) - my teacher founded it.

[keypeg]

In public ed. were are guided by specific learning targets or standards. ........


I am most interested with what people feel are the essential things that early beginners MUST know in order to start making music. Is there a "right" chronology to what skills must be taught?  .... i.e. how to sit at the keyboard, high/low sounds, notes, 5 finger patterns/chords......

Putting all this together, I have the impression that you are asking about early goals or first things to aim for when teaching to make sure these things are there to support the student's playing.  Some people are getting hung on on the word "targets" and some specific meaning to that word so it would be good to get this straight.  Is it correct that what you are actually after are those kinds of early goals, of which you gave some examples?

[keyboardclass]

Goals is the more appropriate word.  Thanks, keypeg.

[keypeg]

Then ofc we still have the OP's original question, the answer of which interests me as well.

[keyboardclass]

Then ofc we still have the OP's original question, the answer of which interests me as well.

But that puts the cart before the horse.  You start with Aims and Objectives and from there ascertain the required goals (or goal posts perhaps). 

[fleetfingers]

Target - aim - goal. Same thing.

Yes, I believe it's very important to have targets. Without them, there is no direction and sometimes decreased motivation.

I do not talk openly with my students about what my specific aims are. I know what I'm looking for, and make corrections in their playing. I give them music to sight read that is at an appropriate level for them. In my view, the aims are for me - to keep things moving along and to make sure I'm teaching them the way I should.

As far as the order goes, I think it's important to be flexible, because each student is going to grasp concepts in a different order and at different rates. A teacher should have a mental checklist of what the student should be able to do and always be looking for those things and, if need be, finding ways to fill in the holes.

That being said, it's good to have a general order that most kids will follow. The order for reading music (that I use) is: grand staff and how each white key has its own line or space, middle C, measures, time signatures, note values, and then note names. They have to be able to say the letter, write it, and play it on the piano (with the correct rhythm). Steps, skips, and other intervals; reference notes, recognizing common chord patterns and scales, recognizing common rhythms; understanding how to analyze a piece before playing it, finding repeats, modulations, etc.

The order for playing is: clear and controlled movements in hands separate. Then, as soon as possible, have them start playing pieces with both hands at the same time. Coordination is a big hurdle in piano playing, and I like to get past that one right away. Start in five-finger C position, then branch out, making sure they understand how to use the right fingers for most efficient playing. Scales, chords, arppegios - how to position the hand and wrist and use them when playing black keys. Understanding how to approach the learning of a new piece.

I'm sure there's more. That's a start . . . concepts that I "aim" to have my students understand.

[keypeg]

But that puts the cart before the horse.  You start with Aims and Objectives and from there ascertain the required goals (or goal posts perhaps). 

That would be one way of addressing it as an answer, yes.

[keyboardclass]

But ff, what are the Aims and Objectives that bind them all together?  Including Minuet in G?

[keyboardclass]

As an educator I am sure you are familiar with Understanding By Design

'Teachers, according to UbD proponents, traditionally start curriculum planning with activities and textbooks instead of identifying classroom learning goals and planning towards that goal.'  Wha???  Even I've got more regard - and I don't have much - for teachers than that.

Essentially the real aim of all these fads, and I've seen a few in my time,  is to make good teachers out of poor ones (very much a lost cause).   In the end they become tools of central government control, usually for political ends.  Oh for a return to Plowden! 

[fleetfingers]

I just don't see how those words are different. They are synonyms. What you seem to be saying is that there are steps or subgoals that lead to a higher goal. Is that right?

Minuet in G? What - how to teach it? What are the aims in learning the piece? Which Minuet in G? Not sure what you are asking . . .

[keyboardclass]

From Wiki:
'The Compact Oxford English Dictionary and others interchangeably define the noun "objective" as, Objective: noun 1 a goal or aim.[1] While the noun forms of the three words aim, objective and goal are often used synonymously, among professionals in organised education, the words aim and objective are more narrowly defined and are distinct from each other. An objective is a measurable, observable behavior of less than a day's duration; a goal is the outcome of a series of successfully completed objectives, possibly measured over a series of days; while an aim is an expression of a long-term purpose, usually over the course of one or more years.'

I must admit to me long-term purpose seems a much better descriptor than aims.

[nyiregyhazi]

Surely that does go without saying?  It's what makes a good teacher.  Now you might say 'Well, let's teach that to teachers!'  No.., you can lead horses to water but you can't get them to wonder about its physical properties and anyway, finding a meaningful context for Minuet in G may be a little difficult!  

Check out EPTA UK's Certificate in Piano Pedagogy (CPPed) - my teacher founded it.

Are you arguing that all teachers are good and that this occurs by instinct? If not,  it evidently doesn't go without saying. Also, the poster did not ask whether there should be goals. He raised the issue of WHAT they ought to be- which neither goes without saying nor is subject to universal agreement.

[keypeg]

I just don't see how those words are different. They are synonyms. What you seem to be saying is that there are steps or subgoals that lead to a higher goal. Is that right?

Minuet in G? What - how to teach it? What are the aims in learning the piece? Which Minuet in G? Not sure what you are asking . . .

(hopefully to get at what keyboardklass is alluding to).  In classical classroom teaching, you would begin with the aims and objectives, rather than the piece.  So you would not start with "what are the aims in learning the piece" but "what piece can I use to reach my aims" - though either end of the stick would yield something.

So in the classical classroom teaching you start with a general aim, which you break down into specific ones, and then the actual lesson plan which includes what you will do, what your students will do to "practice" and learn through doing, and what tools you have.  Example: In math. your overall aim might be for the kids to understand the concept of multiplying, and be able to do so.  You break this into smaller bits: get at the concept (it's like a fast way of adding; it's groups of 2's, or 3's, or 4's, or 5's, there's a times table to learn etc.).  Then you turn that into a series of lessons: have them count by 2's or 3's, let them relate that to 3 X 5, which means "three five's" and get them to count that by 5's, have them do math questions and have them memorize their number facts.  You look at what tools you can use: counting blocks, apples in the grocery store sold at 5 cents each, homework math questions.  Your homework sheet is like the Minuet in G.

If you follow this kind of model, then you might be saying "I want this child to be able to play music in the keys of C, G, D and F, to have a handle on this kind of touch, and this meter.  What kind of piece could I use for teaching him these things?"  Your Minuet in G might be one of those pieces.

A teacher might also approach teaching from the opposite end.  You start with Minuet in G, and you ask yourself "what skills do I have to teach to enable the student to play this piece?  
What should I do to give him these skills?  What are the tricky spots, why are they tricky, and how do we handle them?"  If you start from what's in the piece, then you're probably also getting at some of the aims and objectives in the first model.

Many teachers use method books.  In that case, a team of people have already done this "aims and objectives" thing for you.  In a method book, specific things are taught in the book - like for example introducing a new key signature, legato vs. staccato, moving past 5 finger position etc.  They will have pieces for illustrating these concepts, and for practicing them.  It has already been planned for you.

[nyiregyhazi]

From Wiki:
'The Compact Oxford English Dictionary and others interchangeably define the noun "objective" as, Objective: noun 1 a goal or aim.[1] While the noun forms of the three words aim, objective and goal are often used synonymously, among professionals in organised education, the words aim and objective are more narrowly defined and are distinct from each other. An objective is a measurable, observable behavior of less than a day's duration; a goal is the outcome of a series of successfully completed objectives, possibly measured over a series of days; while an aim is an expression of a long-term purpose, usually over the course of one or more years.'

I must admit to me long-term purpose seems a much better descriptor than aims.

The people who redefined these synonymous pieces of vocabulary are surely the same ones who spoiled the word target for you? So how about if we just ignore the more specific meanings that have been synthetically tacked on by bullshitters- and take the words to mean what everybody else in the world (including the oxford English dictionary) takes them to mean? The fact that a small group uses these synonyms as code words for something does not render them with a new outright meaning. Above all, it does not replace the validity of sticking to their widely accepted meaning.

[keypeg]

This is an international forum.  Nitpicking terminology is not helpful to the asker.  Since aims and objectives have now been defined, would it be possible to see actual answers to the question (which is now understood)?  Ff has given a first stab at it.

[keyboardclass]

Many teachers use method books.  In that case, a team of people have already done this "aims and objectives" thing for you.  In a method book, specific things are taught in the book - like for example introducing a new key signature, legato vs. staccato, moving past 5 finger position etc.  They will have pieces for illustrating these concepts, and for practicing them.  It has already been planned for you.

Too true, too often, but unless the Aims and Objectives live within you you're only going through the motions.  By the way Aim 1 would need to encompass Why make music in a structured way?

[nyiregyhazi]

This is an international forum.  Nitpicking terminology is not helpful to the asker.  Since aims and objectives have now been defined, would it be possible to see actual answers to the question (which is now understood)?  Ff has given a first stab at it.

That is exactly what I was seeking clear the way for-by illustrating that previous attempts at nitpicking were based on dubiously assigned meanings that are neither widely accepted nor likely to be intended.

[keyboardclass]

The OP's a public educator - a professional.  We'll go with Wiki, thank you very much , rather than your pub know-all.

[nyiregyhazi]

The OP's a public educator - a professional.  We'll go with Wiki, thank you very much , rather than your pub know-all.

Rather than the Oxford English Dictionary, I think you'll find. Also, the poster has spoken for himself about what he meant- clarifying that he used the words in their accepted meaning and not as this ridiculous jargon.  He has already made his meaning abundantly clear.

[keypeg]

The OP's a public educator - a professional.  We'll go with Wiki, thank you very much , rather than your pub know-all.

Which is my background as well.  Is it possible, PLEASE, to discuss the subject rather than terminology since this has been cleared up.

Also a strong request probably on behalf of everyone - assessments of what another person knows are ad hominem and unpleasant to read.  This should stop.  Perhaps moderators can take care of that part.

[keypeg]

Keyboardklass, since you state that you have the expertise, are you able to answer the OP's question with your own examples?

[keyboardclass]

Keyboardklass, since you state that you have the expertise, are you able to answer the OP's question with your own examples?

Except he has it backwards.  You start with Aims and Objectives then the nitty gritty of how to get there.  I did make a start for him - Why make music in a structured way?

[nyiregyhazi]

Except he has it backwards.  You start with Aims and Objectives then the nitty gritty of how to get there.  I did make a start for him - Why make music in a structured way?

You make this highly condescending statement as if it were in correction of something the poster stated? Would you mind quoting where he implied that he believes that aims don't come first- assuming you're not arguing against a concocted strawman? Opening a thread by asking about goals and targets hardly suggest that he holds such a view. Also, while the long term aims are pretty obvious, a large part of the how is based on fulfilling smaller aims anyway. These aren't clearly distinct categories. For example, reading music well is both an aim in itself and a "how" to play the piano.

[mcdiddy1]

Okay...here goes.
This is a topic that will no doubt give rise to varying opinions.

I am a public educator, as well as a piano teacher.
In public ed. were are guided by specific learning targets or standards.
Does anyone know of such a thing existing in the world of piano pedagogy?

I am most interested with what people feel are the essential things that early beginners MUST know in order to start making music. Is there a "right" chronology to what skills must be taught?

ie how to sit at the keyboard, high/low sounds, notes, 5 finger patterns/chords......
Thank you in advance for your response

In response to your question, there are multiple standards and targets for most instruments especially an instrument as popular as piano.

I heard a quote before that there is no such thing as good or bad technique just efficient and less efficient ones and I think that is true. So I think as teachers it is are responsibility to teach students skills to produce the highest quality of music the music demands and what the music requires.

 I don't think there is necessarily a "right " order because humans are not photocopies of each other. Each student has particular potential strengths and weakness that even they do not realize. Some students are more intuitive and do not need a teacher to figure out the sounds get higher toward the night, or how to make a sound on the piano, and some even have a natural technique at the keyboard. So I don't think teaching dynamics before teaching the note names on the key board is a sin. But certain skilled like being to play with a good steady pulse or understanding of tone is a basic skill that can plague even the most advanced pianist. I think there is an infinite variety of goals and objectives you can have for students that are music specific and student specific. I think the question you mean to ask are what are the fundamental skills students should come a way with from music lessons to achieve excellence.

My list is
basic piano technique: including relationship of the body, elbow,fingers, relaxed shoulders elbows free and not touching etc

music literacy-ability to identify notes, key signatures, rhythms, note placement , dynamics, character marks, phrasing etc

rhythmic pulse-ability to keep a steady beat, perform multiple rhythmic patterns on a steady beat, subdivision, ritards/rubatos

musicianship-style, composer traits, artistry, musical direction, emotion, imagination, interpretation etc.

Every teacher is different just like every student is different so some will emphasize one more than the other. For me what music teacher teaches is vast and goes beyond a simple check list of skills or objectives. It comes down to what your philosophy is and how detailed and nuanced it goes. At the minimum, there are skills are student should be able to but students should be allowed to play with emotion and artistry as well as know the difference between quarter-notes and half-notes. While for some students what they learned may seemingly go beyond their head but I do think musicianship area is every bit as important as the other areas. We do not live in vacuum so we learn by watching, listening and experiencing how the teacher plays and stays. having a teacher who is versatile and knowledgeable and skilled will give create set of objectives that is geared towards the students rather than a checklist for any generic student

[keyboardclass]

You make this highly condescending statement as if it were in correction of something the poster stated?

Jeez, get a life.

[keypeg]

McDiddy - THANK YOU for giving an actual and thought out reply to the question.  There are many useful things in there, and enough concrete examples for anyone to understand what you mean.

[keypeg]

My take:

Piano lessons are about learning to play music on the piano.  So teaching would involve some elements of technique, which involve both how to use the body and the nature of the instrument, and elements of music, which includes such things as notes, possibly recognizing things by ear, possibly reading skills, if you include the fact that different philosophies and goals exist.  Your first core goals would exist in that area.

There are lots of philosophies and approaches,so you can't really get more specific than that.  Some people like to teach a rather rigid perfect posture and perfect movement from the start, while others will say this can destroy movement which is natural and good, create self-consciousness etc.  The same with when and how notes should be taught, how and whether reading should develop etc.  I think that what everyone agrees on is that ultimately these types of goals should be reached.

Individual teaching differs from classroom teaching in that you can work with the student as he is, and build what you teach from there.  You have a knowledge of what piano and music and technique entail, and you have the student in front of you.  Different teacher will work differently with this combination with different degrees of flexibility.

[fleetfingers]

In classical classroom teaching, you would begin with the aims and objectives, rather than the piece.  So you would not start with "what are the aims in learning the piece" but "what piece can I use to reach my aims" - though either end of the stick would yield something.

I would say that it should be both when teaching/learning piano. In many cases, learning to play a specific piece is the goal in and of itself. So, figuring out what needs to be accomplished and how to go about learning it is the approach. In so doing, you develop the techniques needed to play that piece which can be used again when learning another piece requiring the same techniques. So, in setting out to learn a new piece that stretches you (or your student) makes you (or them) a better piano player . . . which is the ultimate "objective" or "aim", I assume.

But, as teachers, we know the skills that the student is going to need as he progresses through the repertoire. For that reason, pieces should be assigned which emphasize the techniques they need to strengthen. I think it's important that students love the pieces they are learning, so it's best to let them choose from a list of pieces, any of which will achieve the results the teacher is looking for. Once a piece is chosen, it's back to the first approach: "What are the aims in learning the piece" or, in other words, "How do we tackle this thing?"

[starstruck5]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

[keypeg]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

I would like to see videos where this teacher's students are also playing independently.

[keyboardclass]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

What a joke!  Firstly, moving the fingers/hand for someone else accomplishes nothing.  Secondly, the movement she is teaching - key goes down after the wrist goes down is a total waste of wrist movement.  If you're using the wrist, from its initial movement downwards so also the key should be moving.

[nyiregyhazi]

What a joke!  Firstly, moving the fingers/hand for someone else accomplishes nothing.

Based on what evidence/logic?

Secondly, the movement she is teaching - key goes down after the wrist goes down is a total waste of wrist movement.  If you're using the wrist, from its initial movement downwards so also the key should be moving.

What she is doing makes perfect sense. Hardly a "joke".  Listen to the depth of tone and precision of attack. A wrist drop is an extremely inefficient movement, if it continues through key depression. All the energy is sent into accelerating the wrist- which must then be abruptly stopped. Directing the wrist slightly upwards (via a slight forward motion) during key depression means that gravity provides a braking force against additional movement (rather than an accelerator to the pointless process of continuing a wrist descent). It's an excellent way to achieve looseness- without causing the imprecision that comes from a wrist flop during depression. Your own video that supposedly explains how to play thirds provides an excellent illustration of the vagueness and imprecision that is caused by dropping the wrist during key depression. The tone is extremely uneven. You can call other people's methods a "joke", but it's readily audible as to which approach provides more tonal control.

[landorrano]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

My reaction is unequivocal enthusiasm.

[keyboardclass]

A wrist drop is an extremely inefficient movement, if it continues through key depression.

It needs to or you keep the tension.  Dropping the wrist before key depression, as she does in the vid, is a total waste of an effort which could be used in key depression.   Still, I'm not about to let you trash this thread with your crackpot physics so I'll say sayonara baby!

[nyiregyhazi]

It needs to or you keep the tension.  Dropping the wrist before key depression, as she does in the vid, is a total waste of an effort which could be used in key depression.   Still, I'm not about to let you trash this thread with your crackpot physics so I'll say sayonara baby!

What tension? If a wrist is drifting slowly upwards, it cannot be tense. For that matter, a still wrist can be relaxed- assuming the fingers support properly. This is exactly what you see (at least some of the time) in all advanced pianists who play Bach. Are you suggesting that they are tense whenever their wrists are not dropping? That is totally illogical. I regularly demonstrate to students how easily they can slowly lift my wrist while I play fast semiquavers with a still arm. This is most easily learned by feeling a tiny upward drift.

A wrist drop is not an effective way to accelerate a key. The degree of wastage is off the scale. Unless the wrist is already substantially below the key, it creates movement in a large circle AROUND the fingertip- which is an extremely poor way to create acceleration. Just try hammering a nail in by pulling down the handle of hammer- instead of rolling it forwards and up, through the action. The former style of movement sends almost all the energy into completely the wrong place. The handle is what gets notably accelerated, not the head of the hammer against the nail- just as a wrist drop accelerates the wrist instead of doing much to accelerate a fingertip against the key.

Incidentally, are you able to discuss anything without accusing other teachers' methods of being a joke and directing weak off-topic insults at anyone who scrutinises your dismissal?

[keypeg]

Rather than guess how these students might play when their hands are not being manipulated, wouldn't it make sense to look at videos (if any are around) to see and hear how they DO play?

I see some possibilities in the idea of learning by touch of this kind.  It can be hard to follow instructions about a movement - to understand in your body what is meant - and it may be just as hard to follow by trying to imitate someone else.

[keyboardclass]

What tension? If a wrist is drifting slowly upwards, it cannot be tense.

Check the OP - you're way off base.  If you want a thread on the dynamics of the wrist start one!

[pianowolfi]

I know nothing about teaching, so can't contribute much to this thread. What do you think of this though???

I can't stand this kind of teaching at all.

[keypeg]

I can't stand this kind of teaching at all.

Reason?

[keypeg]

Here is why I was hoping that there were also videos of this teacher's students playing.

By watching this teacher manipulate the child's hands, we get the idea of what the teacher is trying to achieve, but we don't know the results.  When you play, you act on the piano - you cannot stay in a passive mode, having your body moved for you.  If the children actually absorb the movement, and then get a feel for what it does, then its a success.  When you lift a coffee cup, your fingers close on the handle, your arms make motions, but you are also feeling its weight and responding to it.  Someone being led through "coffee cup technique" and unable to transition of responding to the sensation of this cup later on will have failed.  So what happens with this?

A while back we watched some videos of students being taught certain motions from the very beginning.  I am acquiring some of those motions myself, but not in a choreographed way.  Some students on Youtube had clearly choreographed movements, but what they did didn't seem to do anything to their playing.  It was like they were moving their arms through a range of movements without understanding why.  I'd say that they were not feeling the weight of the coffee cup - not relating physically to the piano or the sound.  In other cases it did transition to something that worked.  And in still others, the student seemed to have something natural which ended up looking a bit like the choreographed movements, but it seemed to come from inside.

So for me, the only way to tell if this is effective is if something effective happens in their playing which we can also hear.

What I noticed in the clip is that while the child's wrist and seemed to work in the way the teacher wanted, and must have been relaxed to be that "bendable", her fingers seemed to jut out stiffly or move stiffly from time to time.  At one point the teacher says "don't do this" and shows this stiff movement with the fingers bending upward above the surface of the hand.