Alternatives to questioning during discussion sessions

[lostinidlewonder]

Sometimes it is inappropriate to use questions as a means of prompting a student to participate in discussion. Other techniques are just as effective and will often facilitate interpersonal interaction.

1) Declarative statements:The teacher expresses points of view, thoughts, summary statements etc about a topic. Subject statements will often prompt students to express their own views.

2) Reflective restatements: The teacher summarizes and reflects on what has been previously said. Such statements allow the teacher to focus on important aspects of content previously stated by students.
 
3) Prescriptions: The teacher tells a student to contribute to the discussion (eg: "tell me what you think?") This can be overdone (students would rather be asked than told what to do), but if used appropriately will encourage them to participate in the discussion.

4) Declarations of perplexity: Express concern or difficulty in finding a solution to a problem. This will often prompt the student to offer suggestions or solutions.

5) Invitations to elaborate: Invite the student to elaborate on statements made during the discussion. Students are often encouraged by such requests since in doing so the teacher is offering support to original statements made by the student.

6) Questions generated from other people: Ask the student to talk to their peers, friends or family about certain issues and come up with questions that they might be able to ask the teacher.

7) Deliberate silence: Silence will allow students an opportunity to reflect on subject matters. It is sometimes appropriate to have "think time" of silence at set intervals during discussion.

[Adapted from categories suggested by Dilton, J.T (1982) "Cognitive correspondence between question/statement and response" American Educational Research Journal, 19,540-51.]

[keypeg]

What is the purpose of these discussions, and participation in them?

[nyiregyhazi]

What is the purpose of these discussions, and participation in them?

Yeah, I'm curious- why would any of these techniques be preferable to simply asking a question- even if it's sometimes as broad as "any thoughts?" (rather than a loaded question)? What makes any of these alternatives any better?

[jpahmad]

I'm assuming these techniques vary with the age of the student

[keypeg]

When I was a student myself there were these "discussions" choreographed by a teacher.  But I never wondered about the purpose.  So now I am wondering.

There is a purpose behind it, which involves thoughts about thoughts on form, that being what both of the excerpts of this person's writing seem to be about.

[jpahmad]

When I was a student myself there were these "discussions" choreographed by a teacher.  But I never wondered about the purpose.  So now I am wondering.

There is a purpose behind it, which involves thoughts about thoughts on form, that being what both of the excerpts of this person's writing seem to be about.

Does it matter?

[j_menz]

My teachers generally had more trouble getting me to shut up. 

[keypeg]

Does it matter?

It matters very much.  If something is done for a purpose and you know what the purpose is, usually the right way of doing something presents itself.  If a teacher is working toward a purpose then students sense it, and if they are working toward it too all the better.  Otoh, if a teacher is going through the motions of "having a discussion" because that is what the curriculum outline says, and that teacher then uses those various forms that have been outlined, it's empty.  A lot of the strategies left me with a cold and familiar feeling and that is probably why.

This is the one that got me thinking:

4) Declarations of perplexity: Express concern or difficulty in finding a solution to a problem. This will often prompt the student to offer suggestions or solutions.

If a teacher expresses perplexity, then I hope he is genuinely perplexed.  Otherwise it is insincere and it's felt that way.

[nyiregyhazi]

It matters very much.  If something is done for a purpose and you know what the purpose is, usually the right way of doing something presents itself.  If a teacher is working toward a purpose then students sense it, and if they are working toward it too all the better.  Otoh, if a teacher is going through the motions of "having a discussion" because that is what the curriculum outline says, and that teacher then uses those various forms that have been outlined, it's empty.  

Doesn't that contradict your point about doing things for a purpose? A question that is asked for a "purpose" strikes me as fitting what you describe at the end there- insincere and empty, by this definition. It would be a rigged question designed to lead somewhere specific. A sincere question about opinions would have no purpose at the outset.

I don't question your point about purpose, but I don't think sincerity is a major concern. In some cases it will be clear that a question has but one right answer, while in others it will be open to opinion. There's nothing inherently insincere about either asking a question to check for a correct answer, or in making a point of sometimes asking a broad question purely for the sake of prompting opinion (even if solely because you've been told to look for opinion). If the teacher doesn't sound bored when asking, I don't see any reason why the sincerity actually matters. The only issue is whether the teacher sounds genuinely interested or bored at having to ask the same old question with the same old purpose.

[lostinidlewonder]

What is the purpose of these discussions, and participation in them?

The purpose of the discussion logically depends upon the student and subject. Discussion is an important part of learning, I find it especially helps support the info absorbed and also encourages the student to reflect upon it. Sometimes simply asking questions all the time is not effective, sometimes we want to imply a question or prompt the student to reveal an answer.

...why would any of these techniques be preferable to simply asking a question.

A good teacher has many different tools at their disposal to prompt a response from their student. Directly asking questions all the time might not be effective especially when you want the student to reflect upon the information they have absorbed. Also a student often reveals answers to questions that the teacher might want to hear instead of offering insight into their own thoughts, thus indirect questioning sets up an environment for the student to feel safe to express themselves.

What makes any of these alternatives any better?

Teaching is not a matter of what is better, you need to have tools at your disposal and the experience to know how and when to use them for the individual student.

I'm assuming these techniques vary with the age of the student

Yes. For example a young student often benefits from me pretending to be confused or perplexed over an issue (often very basic). They know I am pretending but it is a game we can play to encourage the student to give responses and feel safe about doing so, and they tend to like it when they think they have taught the teacher something even though it's a game. I of course guide them if they go off track, even older student it is sometimes good to slow down at difficult points and puzzle over the sections with the students. It is often not effective to simply give them answers and questions, sometimes it is helpful to actually put ourselves into their situation and perhaps approach it from their angle.

This is the one that got me thinking:If a teacher expresses perplexity, then I hope he is genuinely perplexed.  Otherwise it is insincere and it's felt that way.

Well a teacher cannot be genuinely perplexed otherwise how could they teach the particular issue? But you can suggest that a certain issue poses a challege and encourage the student to look at it more carefully using the technique described. Sometimes certain teachers can create a lesson where the student needs to answer correct all the time and that all the problems in class are easy and should be answered without problems. I have found that this does not encourage students who might struggle over issues, it gives them confidence and support when the teacher puzzles over their difficulties (even though the difficulty is dead easy for the teacher).

[keypeg]

.

[nyiregyhazi]

A good teacher has many different tools at their disposal to prompt a response from their student. Directly asking questions all the time might not be effective especially when you want the student to reflect upon the information they have absorbed. Also a student often reveals answers to questions that the teacher might want to hear instead of offering insight into their own thoughts, thus indirect questioning sets up an environment for the student to feel safe to express themselves.
Teaching is not a matter of what is better, you need to have tools at your disposal and the experience to know how and when to use them for the individual student.

But my point would be that unless it's better- why not keep it simple and just ask questions? Why make such a complicated check-list unless there is a very specific reason to feel that they serve the task notably better? Other than the general "what do you think?" (in itself a type of question) I'm just struggling to see anything that immediately makes me feel I should try to make a point of brining in one of those techniques as an alternative to the simpler process of asking a suitable question. I'm not saying they're worse than questions but, unless there's a really obvious reason why some combination of both broad and specific questions would be inadequate, I can't see any obvious reason to go out of your way to use alternative techniques.

The situations described will organically evolve from time to time, but I'm not convinced by the idea of trying to make them come about unnaturally. It strikes as being more descriptive than prescriptive. A student who is inclined to proffer opinions will naturally do so from time to time- and going silent will likely prompt them to talk. However, a student who is not will probably not do so unless you ask questions. In cases where discussion does not flow freely (which is the only time I'd really worry about which techniques will draw opinions) it strikes me that questioning is always the most natural port of call. Going silent certainly won't help there and neither will making statements. Many of these things merely describe ways in which talkative students will be inclined to contribute to start with- but it's the quiet students who are the problem!

[lostinidlewonder]

But my point would be that unless it's better- why not keep it simple and just ask questions?

Already offered a brief answer for that.

[nyiregyhazi]

Already offered a brief answer for that.

Well, I see what you mean- but most of them could likely only apply to a student who is already very talkative. If that's the case, constantly stopping their flow to pedantically ask new questions would be silly. However, if the student is not naturally talkative, scarcely a single one of the techniques mentioned would draw anything out of them. It largely just describes the natural evolution of how discussion will progress with a student who is naturally talkative. I think simple questioning is the best tool of all for drawing opinions. I'm not personally convinced that there's notable benefit from trying to find tricks to avoid questions. If you don't want the student feel tested, just make the questions a little broader and the problem is solved.

[j_menz]

However, if the student is not naturally talkative, scarcely a single one of the techniques mentioned would draw anything out of them.

Thumbscrews? Waterboarding?

[lostinidlewonder]

Well, I see what you mean- but most of them could likely only apply to a student who is already very talkative. If that's the case, constantly stopping their flow to pedantically ask new questions would be silly.

Also notice that questions is only one side, discussions are not always full of questions but rather offers a recap on knowledge learned. When you have these discussions depends on the student, often we have no need to have discussion while we are practically learning, I tend to find most of the discussions occur at the start of a lesson (content learned since our last visit or what we are planning to learn in the current lesson) and at the end (recap of the lesson). It also can be helpful to use to get feedback from your students which can be used intermittently through the lesson. Of course we need to ensure we are not disrupting the flow of the lesson and this is often a personal issue depending upon the students learning style.

........ However, if the student is not naturally talkative, scarcely a single one of the techniques mentioned would draw anything out of them.

I am yet to meet a student so untalkative that NONE of the techniques cause them to give me responses. Maybe you will find one but I haven't found one yet from the hundreds I have taught.

[nyiregyhazi]

Also notice that questions is only one side, discussions are not always full of questions but rather offers a recap on knowledge learned. When you have these discussions depends on the student, often we have no need to have discussion while we are practically learning, I tend to find most of the discussions occur at the start of a lesson (content learned since our last visit or what we are planning to learn in the current lesson) and at the end (recap of the lesson). It also can be helpful to use to get feedback from your students which can be used intermittently through the lesson. Of course we need to ensure we are not disrupting the flow of the lesson and this is often personal issue depending upon the students learning style.

Sure- but again if it's flowing naturally, who needs a check list? Would a teacher be sitting there thinking "at some point I'll try going silent and see if it prompts an opinion"? I don't personally see how any of the techniques can be crowbarred in. If discussion isn't happening and you want it to, there's nothing better than a question to start it. If it's already happening, you can merely let it evolve.

I am yet to meet a student so untalkative that NONE of the techniques cause them to give me responses. Maybe you will find one but I haven't found one yet from the hundreds I have taught.

My point is that a student who is already inclined to respond will respond to almost any of them. However, the quiet ones often take questions to get them started. Strategies to avoid questions are the last thing I'd try in such cases.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sure- but again if it's flowing naturally, who needs a check list?

Who is to say we need to be consciously aware of using the check list or even print a list out and use it as a check list? As a matter of discussion/learning it is interesting to list ideas into generalized form, it offers a neatly organised source of information which one can then branch out from and research more about which ever ones specifically interest them.

My point is that a student who is inclined to respond will respond to almost any of them. However, the quiet ones often take questions to get them started. Trying not to use questions is the last thing I'd try in such cases.

This is why I posted this paper about ways we can get responses from the students and teachers should be interested to know that many of these techiques they might already use naturally without even having to categorise them. We are not eliminating questions using these techniques because they encourage the same responses that direct questioning would also have, they just are packaged in another way which may work better for the individual student.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is why I posted this paper about ways we can get responses from the students and teachers should be interested to know that many of these techiques they might already use naturally without even having to categorise them. We are not eliminating questions using these techniques because they encourage the same responses that direct questioning would also have, they just are packaged in another way which may work better for the individual student.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I cannot conceive of a situation where a question would be directly inferior- unless it's a poorly thought out question that interrupts a train of thought that should have been allowed to continue. I don't see the other things as alternative techniques so much as description of countless situations in which a student who is inclined to actively offer opinions will naturally be doing so (whereas a student who is not so naturally active will almost certainly be silent). Virtually all the other things just naturally come about, if a student is confident and eager to give their opinion- but not if they are not confident. Unless a flood of poorly chosen questions stops a student having a chance to continue a useful train thought to completion (by interrupting), I don't see why it would matter whether they were prompted by an initial question or by circumstances. The only issue I personally see is whether the questions are well chosen and whether the teacher is generally good at listening and asking questions that inspire (rather than stilt) further debate.

[lostinidlewonder]

...I cannot conceive of a situation where a question would be directly inferior....

Again I point out that it is not a matter of what is better but rather we have various tools to get the same results.

I don't see the other things as alternative techniques so much as description of countless situations in which a student who is inclined to actively offer opinions will naturally be doing so (whereas a student who is not so naturally active will almost certainly be silent).

I don't see how what I have listed is a description of COUNTLESS situations. Again I am yet to find a student so untalkative that they do not naturally present me with feedback so what you are saying here is obsolete to me.

Virtually all the other things just naturally come about, if a student is confident and eager to give their opinion- but not if they are not confident.

You are saying the same thing again but in different words. You seem to be taking an example of an extreme student full of fright and shyness which I just don't come across. You may also notice that these techniques actually will help a shy student to open up more, rather than blatantly throwing questions at them. So your logic is failing.

The only issue I personally see is whether the questions are well chosen and whether the teacher is generally good at listening and asking questions that inspire (rather than stilt) further debate.

This is important of course, but this does not take away anything from the list of alternatives. Using the listed alternatives does not remove the questions that are wanting to be asked you are merely presenting it in different ways. You might not find it effective to use them which is fair enough, perhaps if you had more experience using the various techniques you would understand them. These cannot be appreciated just by reading them you need to try them out, and if you are not natural in the approach to use them you need formal training in teaching then.

This list is not made up by myself but is a resource taught to teachers who study the subject of teaching in universities ALL OVER THE WORLD. So if you are at odds at what it is implying then I am afraid you are merely a marginalized teacher.

[nyiregyhazi]

Again I point out that it is not a matter of what is better but rather we have various tools to get the same results.

I heard you. The point is that if it's only different (and not definably better in some respect), there's no reason to seek an alternative to the simplicity of asking a question that steers the student to the issues that you wish them to think about- especially as a question can either be extremely specific or notably broad. In that respect, a question is not limiting. The only situation in which I would consider a question to be inappropriate is if it interrupts a train of thought in a destructive fashion.

I don't see how what I have listed is a description of COUNTLESS situations. Again I am yet to find a student so untalkative that they do not naturally present me with feedback so what you are saying here is obsolete to me.

Then what is the purpose of the list? Who cares whether their opinions are solicited by silence (implying that that they were merely waiting for the opportunity to give it in the first place) or a question about what they think? The only issue is whether they are thinking productively and feeling involved.

You are saying the same thing again but in different words. You seem to be taking an example of an extreme student full of fright and shyness which I just don't come across. You may also notice that these techniques actually will help a shy student to open up more, rather than blatantly throwing questions at them. So your logic is failing.

Which ones? Silence doesn't make a shy student speak. Simply making statements doesn't either (even if followed by silence). You can't ask someone to elaborate on something that they have not said and neither can you summarise it. The only one which would obviously bring a quiet student to speak is the "any thoughts?" one- which (other than being a question anyway!) could be met with a short non-commital answer, due to being too general. Such situations require a few leading questions to get things started. Almost every one of those requires a student who is already commited to offering their opinions (meaning that the real "technique" is basically just permitting them to do so).

You might not find it effective to use them which is fair enough, perhaps if you had more experience using the various techniques you would understand them.

There's not a single one I've never used- but not as a "technique". If I feel a student hasn't elaborated to the full, it's natural that I'll ask them to clarify- out of interest in where they going. It's not a "technique", by any stretch and I don't believe it could be crowbarred in. I have never asked for clarification as a "technique"- but because I was not clear on what the student's full thoughts and wished to hear more to find out. If I was clear on the point they had made (and they looked as if they had happily made it), I would not ask them to elaborate. If a student seems like they might have something to say, sometimes I'll pause and see if they do or not. It's part of natural human discourse- not a "technique". As for declarative statements- what teacher could fail to be doing that already? I'm just bemused as to what the purpose of outlining these natural aspects of conversation might be- and why it wouldn't be better to find the question that will cause the student to think about their views on what the teacher feels is a relevant area. Even with the naturally talkative student, if you just let them talk and talk they may be off on a minimally useful tangent. Sometimes you need to steer them back- and there's nothing better than a question to steer them on course towards what you feel would be beneficial for them to consider.

This list is not made up by myself but is a resource taught to teachers who study the subject of teaching in universities ALL OVER THE WORLD. So if you are at odds at what it is implying then I am afraid you are merely a marginalized teacher.

What I'm wondering is what (if anything much at all) it implies. It describes the surface of an interaction- not the deeper underlying issues that might be of greater interest.

[lostinidlewonder]

The point is that if it's only different (and not definably better........

So the 3rd or 4th time I'm saying this, it is not a matter of better. It's useless to debate with repetition, it does not change anything since you are merely stating the same thing again and again.

Then what is the purpose of the list?

This has already been answered.

Which ones? Silence doesn't make a shy student speak

It doesn't make them speak but it allows them to absorb and reflect on the information which will set them up to answer questions in the future more effectively. Again you need PRACTICAL experience not just internalize it.

Which ones? Silence doesn't make a shy student speak
 Simply making statements doesn't either (even if followed by silence).

Maybe with your teaching capabilities, however a great majority of teachers who teach in the public and private institution of education will disagree with you.

There's not a single one I've never used- but not as a "technique".

I really don't care how YOU personally define what technique means, it is a teaching technique and if you disagree I couldn't care less because it offers nothing useful.

What I'm wondering is what (if anything much at all) it implies. It describes the surface of an interaction- not the deeper underlying issues that might be of greater interest.

Why are you so caught up over what is better or what is greater, what is a deeper meaning etc etc etc? If you would like to elaborate on the list and reveal the deeper issues please do so, but merely saying there are deeper issues which are more interesting and then offering none of them, it is just rambling.

[nyiregyhazi]

So the 3rd or 4th time I'm saying this, it is not a matter of better. It's useless to debate with repetition, it does not change anything since you are merely stating the same thing again and again.
This has already been answered.

I've made my point clear. If there's no specifically definable superiority (and it's only different) there's no reason to try to avoid simple questions. If it's not superior, there's no purpose in seeking something that has an identical effect merely for the sake of difference. Questions already fulfill the role perfectly well. If I want to go somewhere, I'll use a question. Once the wheels are turning, the things described will naturally be happening along the ride. However, it's questions that set up where you want to start things going. Everything else described is just a matter of allowing everything to carry on coasting down the path (rather than slamming the hand brake on)- not a special "technique". To gain insight into this, it would be necessary to have a some deeper information into what goes on beneath the surface- not a superficial description of the immediate exterior.

[lostinidlewonder]

I've made my point clear. If there's no specifically definable superiority (and it's only different) there's no reason to try to avoid simple questions

These techniques DO NOT remove questions when used appropriately. Unfortunately you seem to think they are which merely highlights the fact you lack practical experience using these tools.

If it's not superior   .... blah blah

Since this is not maths no one could measure with a ruler and tell you which one is better or not. And since we are dealing with individual students when we teach it becomes impossible to give a generalistic answer as to which one is better. This highlights a lacking of your appreciation of teaching techniques since you try to class them in order of "better" where any teacher who has classroom experience will laugh at you for trying this.

[nyiregyhazi]

These techniques DO NOT remove questions when used appropriately. Unfortunately you seem to think they are which merely highlights the fact you lack practical experience using these tools.

They scarcely do anything. They just allow things not to be stilted. The art is in knowing how to use a specific point or question to PROVOKE a thought process in the student. What is described only conveys the most superficial exterior. The inner workings are nowhere to be seen. Anyone of the things described could leave the student meandering aimlessly. The technique is in knowing how to bring them to something pertinent- while still inspiring creative thought rather stifling it. None of what is described even begins to touch upon this.

This highlights a lacking of your appreciation of teaching techniques since you try to class them in order of "better" where any teacher who has classroom experience will laugh at you for trying this.

It's not about absolute superiority- but superiority with regard to achieving a particular purpose. If things are only different, there's no added value. If they are different in a way that specifically provokes a particular thing of value (in the particular situation), there's something to start discussing. What I am not seeing is any obvious reason why any of the things described might contain a specific value that cannot be obtained just as easily by a simple question. The whole thing is extraordinarily passive. Without guiding prods (appropriate selection of which is where the REAL technique lies) it's just asking for meandering streams of poorly connected thoughts. The more active guiding input from a teacher (which may be subtly disguised not to appear as any kind of an obvious cue) is where technique lies- and what it would be interesting to see analysis of.

[lostinidlewonder]

They scarcely do anything.

Yes from your experience as a teacher, which is of course not a surprise then. Rest of post ignored because it doesn't interest me unfortunately

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes from your experience as a teacher, which is of course not a surprise then. Rest of post ignored because it doesn't interest me unfortunately

If you find great insight in such a mundane list of the blindingly obvious then fine. If you cannot discuss ideas in an honest manner (without resorting to unsubstantiated speculation about my professional skills) then I am not going to waste any time here. I am sorry, but there is no insight in that list. It's nothing but a matter of fact statement of the obvious- that does nothing to open up the lid on the guiding issues that allow a teacher to provoke original thoughts while keeping a student from meandering aimlessly. THAT is where technique lies- and the list offers literally nothing about it. Interest lies under the surface- not in a matter of fact description of the exterior alone (that basically just reminds us that if you leave gaps in conversation, the other party will have a chance to join in).

[lostinidlewonder]

If you find great insight in such a mundane list of the blindingly obvious then fine. If you cannot discuss ideas in an honest manner (without resorting to unsubstantiated speculation about my professional skills) then I am not going to waste any time here. I am sorry, but there is no insight in that list. It's nothing but a matter of fact statement of the obvious- that does nothing to open up the lid on the guiding issues that allow a teacher to provoke original thoughts while keeping a student from meandering aimlessly. THAT is where technique lies- and the list offers literally nothing about it.

I'm sorry I have nothing to prove unlike yourself. I merely share knowledge, that is my aim. Your anti thesis approach on pianostreet is not constructive so I will be happy to ignore much of your useless ranting. 

I really am NOT searching for your approval, I will debate briefly with you and as soon as I am satisfied that your misinformation has been addressed and no serious reader will be confused I will start ignoring you. Deal with it.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm sorry I have nothing to prove unlike yourself. I merely share knowledge, that is my aim. Your anti thesis approach on pianostreet is not constructive so I will be happy to ignore much of your useless ranting.  

I really am NOT searching for your approval, I will debate briefly with you and as soon as I am satisfied that your misinformation has been addressed and no serious reader will be confused I will start ignoring you. Deal with it.

I was just trying to appreciate what about the list was supposed to be significant- while offering the opinion that the real secrets lie elsewhere. You've said that it's not supposed to be a prescriptive list to follow. So what is it for? What should a person do with this- if not crowbar in random silences etc?

[lostinidlewonder]

I was just trying to appreciate what about the list was supposed to be significant- while offering the opinion that the real secrets lie elsewhere. You've said that it's not supposed to be a prescriptive list to follow. So what is it for? What should a person do with this- if not crowbar in random silences etc?

Please read previous posts this has been answered.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please read previous posts this has been answered.

Could you summarise? The thing that strikes me is that a teacher would have to be going out of their way in order to contrive a situation where most of these natural events might possibly fail to occur. I can't imagine how much effort it would take not to have these things coming about. What teacher would hear a clearly incomplete thought and say "great! let's move on!"- rather than ask for an expansion (UNLESS it were clear that the student could be directed towards thinking about another issue, more profitably)? It's all about the organisation behind these events. A bad teacher might waste ages asking for more elaboration on a pointless topic (purely for the sake of exploring opinions) whereas a good teacher would know when to move the student on and get them thinking about something more useful. Without touching on that organisation, these issues mean little to nothing at all.

[lostinidlewonder]

Whether a teacher uses these techniques effectively or not is not really my interest of creating this thread. Anything we do in life can be done wrong, this doesn't mean one needs to avoid doing it, trained teachers who have a lot of practical teaching experience will use these techniques effectively.

Of course these techniques listed can be used incorrectly, practical experience is the only way to understand it properly and get better at using them naturally and purposefully. With practical experience you will notice many of these things occur without you having to consort to a check list ensuring you use them.

There are some tools that some teachers might neglect however, thus it may be interesting for them to then see a list of some techniques and hone in onto those that interest them or whichever ones they might find lacks in their lessons. Teachers are constantly learning how to expand their teaching tools and efficiency as a teacher. We never stop learning ourselves and this list offers an  elaboration into teaching but obviously only a part of the teaching craft.

[nyiregyhazi]

Whether a teacher uses these techniques effectively or not is not really my interest of creating this thread. Anything we do in life can be done wrong, this doesn't mean one needs to avoid doing it, trained teachers who have a lot of practical teaching experience will use these techniques effectively.

Of course these techniques listed can be used incorrectly, practical experience is the only way to understand it properly and get better at using them naturally and purposefully. With practical experience you will notice many of these things occur without you having to consort to a check list ensuring you use them.

My point is that none of these can be deemed "techniques" without deeper analysis of how to apply them to achieving a purpose. Without that, they are merely bog-standard events. Making statements and summaries etc. is something that happens as a matter of course in any lesson. If there's something specific about the nature of when a teacher times these things (that makes for an unusually profitable response- rather than allowing a general hole in which the student can speak, should they choose) it might start to be considered technique. But simply to point out that a standard act of making statements could allow a chance for a student to respond with an opinion is only stating the obvious. A teacher who might turn such standard practises into a "technique" for elicting insights is going well beyond the remit of what the summary describes. It's what is omitted that I suspect would have been the really interesting part- not the statement of the obvious.

[lostinidlewonder]

My point is that none of these can be deemed "techniques" without deeper analysis of how to apply them to achieving a purpose.

You are welcome to your own definition of techniques, but who cares except yourself? Are you really interested in squabbling over a word? I am not, sorry. Ignored.


Strange how you started calling the list "techniques" then when you go deeper into your "argument mode" and needed to create something to argue they are no longer called techniques because it suits you now.

Yeah, I'm curious- why would any of these techniques be preferable to simply asking a question....

........ However, if the student is not naturally talkative, scarcely a single one of the techniques mentioned would draw anything out of them.

[nyiregyhazi]

You are welcome to your own definition of techniques, but who cares except yourself? Are you really interested in squabbling over a word? I am not, sorry. Ignored.

It's not about the word. It's about the fact that the only profitable analysis of such mundane events would need to go deeper- in order to be APPLIED as a technique that goes beyond standard everyday practises and draws out something unique.

[lostinidlewonder]

Ok so say what you want to say without using the word technique.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ok so say what you want to say without using the word technique.

Fine, linguistic issues are of no concern. What is of interest is the way a teacher organises his activities in order to coax opinions without either allowing meandering trains of irrelevant thought or shutting down valuable thoughts before completion. The list of techniques (if I am not allowed to question the use of the term) does not even scratch the surface of that organisation, or the understanding of when to press and when to merely allow continuation. The art is in the way a teacher can steer things in a useful direction with subtlety- not the trivial issue of whether they do so via questions or loaded statements followed by silence or whatever else.

[lostinidlewonder]

.... What is of interest is the way a teacher organises his activities

I am sorry but this is a sexist comment, women can also be teachers.

The list of techniques (if I am not allowed to question the use of the term) does not even scratch the surface of that organisation, or the understanding of when to press and when to merely allow continuation.

Whether it scratches the surface or not is based on your own opinion. It is not meant to be a complete description of how to teach but rather an elaboration on a part of teaching. No one here writes posts with a complete description giving 100% direction how to do something. So you are just being stupid here.

Oh and fail you used the word technique.

The art is in the way a teacher can steer things in a useful direction with subtlety- not the trivial issue of whether they do so via questions or loaded statements followed by silence or whatever else.

Well why dont you start a thread called "The art of the way a teacher can steer things" lol. Stop tangenting my threads into your madness that people need to speak with absolute truths and complete thesis. Why dont you go and get some practical knowledge and stop trying to get free knowledge from the internet lol.

[nyiregyhazi]

It is not meant to be a complete description of how to teach but rather an elaboration on a part of teaching. No one here writes posts with a complete description giving 100% direction how to do something.

No, but nobody describes the art of pedalling as being to press your foot down and to sometimes lift it. Without being attached to a direct CONTEXT in which something has value, the immediate surface is not meaningful. Elaboration is exactly what is absent. It's not about the gesture but the ability to apply it to the right time and context- just as the foot must work in the context of the hands for pedalling to be meaningful. Outside of context, it's not meaningful.

I posted what I did in a bid to move discussion to these deeper underlying issues. If you're not interested in going deeper than the surface, I see there is no value to be had from continuing this thread-particularly as you are unable to engage in discussion without resort to personally directed insults. When something begins superficially, it's not exactly unheard for a person to try to bring things into greater depth- for the sake of a more fruitful discussion. If you're not interested in exploring what lies deeper, it doesn't require you to chastise any who is for daring to bring that to the table.

PS technique was your word. You insisted I'm not allowed to question its aptness so I agreed to use the term as you had (so as to steer back to the topic rather than a tangent on semantics) . Now you changed your mind? Have you perhaps become too intent on finding source for argument to keep track of who had argued what?

[mcdiddy1]

The purpose of teaching is to enhance learning right? If people learn in different ways then teachers would be best by using a variety of techniques. While making a statement and have students ponder or elaborate on it may not inherently mean students will make connections that are particularly helpful for another student this may work very well and allow students to see the benefits of concentration and making valuable connections. If the questioning is more focused and precise then it could help the students reacher higher level thinking. This may be more effective in a classroom setting but would be ineffective in a lesson regard piano technique where there are a limited correct actions to be used. I think questioning is important when you want student to construct their own leaning sheme but majority of music teaching requires more direct knowledge answers at least until the student has automated physical response

[lostinidlewonder]

No, but nobody describes the art of pedalling as being to press your foot down and to sometimes lift it. Without being attached to a direct CONTEXT in which something has value, the immediate surface is not meaningful.

This is your opinion that it requires context to be meaningful. I can list out many factors of piano pedalling without giving contextual examples and to the experienced pianist it makes perfec sense. Have a look at this link: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=6742.msg66419#msg66419

I am doing the same with this teaching technque, and since you have no real experience using them of course you are going to be upset and want elaboration and full details, unfortunately I am not here to educate you.

Many things in life can be generally listed and people can learn a great deal from that by their own further study. I have no aim to provide a complete description but rather want to prompt people to think about certain techniques that are alternatives to direct questions. If you don't like it then don't read the thread. If you think it needs more info then please provide it, you have no ability to provide elaboration so just go away and stop asking others to do it for you.

Elaboration is exactly what is absent.

Pay me a fee and I will elaborate for you for students that you teach, otherwise stop making a fuss and DEAL WITH IT.

I posted what I did in a bid to move discussion to these deeper underlying issues.

Wow you are such a knowledge guru, but unfortunately you didn't provide any of these deeper underlying issues yourself

If you're not interested in going deeper than the surface, I see there is no value to be had from continuing this thread-

Well I have to say it probably to you another 10 times before it gets through your head. If you read past posts you will notice it is not my aim to describe 100% with completely context and directions how to use the techniques I have described. This is unnecessary for teachers who should be reading this thread because they can already draw from their experience in the lessons they have given, that completes the picture for themselves. This is a teachers board and this is why those of you who are not teachers will be left confused. I am sorry, maybe you should go get some formal training or practical experience.

PS technique was your word. You insisted I'm not allowed to question its aptness so I agreed to use the term as you had (so as to steer back to the topic rather than a tangent on semantics) . Now you changed your mind? Have you perhaps become too intent on finding source for argument to keep track of who had argued what?

You have a problem to understand English, there is no point in me restating myself.

[lostinidlewonder]

The purpose of teaching is to enhance learning right? If people learn in different ways then teachers would be best by using a variety of techniques.

Exactly, merely treating each student the same and approaching questions or need for feedback constantly the same way may 1)be ineffective for the individual student 2) become boring for the student who is subjected to the same unchanging process constantly.

While making a statement and have students ponder or elaborate on it may not inherently mean students will make connections that are particularly helpful for another student this may work very well and allow students to see the benefits of concentration and making valuable connections. If the questioning is more focused and precise then it could help the students reacher higher level thinking.

Yep, I also find that the act of guiding a student through absorbing and reflecting on knowledge taught in a lessons is important and a teacher can guide their students with many different techniques. Even if what is being discussed is not completely valuable for a particular student the process of recapitulating on the information is an important step in learning, and thus trains the student to understand how to teach themselves as a whole better.

This may be more effective in a classroom setting but would be ineffective in a lesson regard piano technique where there are a limited correct actions to be used. I think questioning is important when you want student to construct their own leaning sheme but majority of music teaching requires more direct knowledge answers at least until the student has automated physical response

I am not sure about it being ineffective in piano lessons because each student has their own hand, challenge, mind to deal with. So there are limited correct actions but finding them through the skill level and personality, learning style etc, that the student currently has provides us with limitless "more correct" actions. I find it difficult to teach a student correct actions if it ignores completely what they naturally do, I generally make small changes from what is their basis.

[nyiregyhazi]

This is your opinion hat it requires context to be meaningful. I can list out many factors of piano pedalling without giving contextual examples and to the experienced pianist it makes perfec sense. Have a look at this link: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=6742.msg66419#msg66419

I am doing the same with this teaching technque, and since you have no real experience using them of course you are going to be upset and want elaboration and full details, unfortunately I am not here to educate you.

As i said, all of these things occur routinely when I am teaching. I just don't view them as either a big deal or even a technique. The technique lies in monitoring productivity- not the surface gestures that may or may not result in a useful progression, when occurring within a specific individual situation. It's on a par with talking about pedalling without referencing WHEN and WHY the foot moves when it does. Context is everything in these issues. If you wish to put a stop to potential discussion of anything deeper and cannot debate issues in a civil and objective tone, I have nothing more to add.

PS while it would be interesting to see your personal opinions fleshed out on any  of the issues listed, I didn't see any point in that decontextualised list either. Personally, I teach pedalling issues as they become relevant, with reference to what is needed at the time- not via a checklist. If a teacher could not both identify and rectify a pedalling issue simply via listening etc, having a checklist is unlikely to make them any better at identifying or fixing that issue. They need to understand what runs deeper.

[lostinidlewonder]

As i said, all of these things occur routinely when I am teaching. I just don't view them as either a big deal or even a technique.

We have already gone over squabbling over the word technique, you are repeating yourself again as if it changes anything. If it isn't a big deal then why bother being the person who responds to the OP the most? It has already been proven that you DID consider them techniques then changed your mind.

The technique lies in monitoring productivity- not the surface gestures ....

Then why don't you elaborate on the countless situations youself then instead of complaining that they are not being discussed? I am offering you to do this but you keep avoiding it, maybe because you realize how stupid it is to ask for it on an internet forum.

I didn't see any point in that decontextualised list either.

And that is fine, I don't care if you use it or not, I don't care who ever else uses it. I am here to provide information. I certainly will not stop doing it because you, a random person, chucks a hissys fit and tries to repeat over and over again what they are frustrated they are not seeing. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean anything. You are not that important.

Personally, I teach pedalling issues as they become relevant, with reference to what is needed at the time- not via a checklist.

No one teaches from a checklist, stop tangenting my threads.

[nyiregyhazi]

Then why don't you elaborate on the countless situations youself then instead of complaining that they are not being discussed? I am offering you to do this but you keep avoiding it, maybe because you realize how stupid it is to ask for it on an internet forum.

Because every time I raised the issue of what goes on under the surface, instead of following up on it (with either questions, requests for additional details or statements of your own on that particular issue) you instead attempted to stilt potential discussion by insisting that I have no business pointing out how superficial the listed descriptions are. I've made my point about how the organisational procedures that determine productivity lie below the surface. If you're interested in my views on these areas, how about trying to find out more via a question? Ironic as it may be to state as much in this particular thread, it's a pretty simple way of instigating a follow-up. I haven't followed up on these issues because you have not shown the slightest interest in moving discussion beyond the surface issues in the list- in spite of my best attempts to move on to deeper areas. You have only shown an interest in debating my right to have attempted to do so. Ignoring something/actively questioning a person's right to go into a particular area of discussion is not a technique that typically inspires a person to go deeper into it (and is rightfully absent from the list).

I'm not going to bother now- because if you had a sincere interest in this issue you'd have taken it up at the outset, rather than done your best to prevent that line of discussion from having a chance to go any further.

No one teaches from a checklist, stop tangenting my threads.

Then what is the list for? A teacher who understands all the issues will naturally deal with them as they arise- list or not. A teacher who doesn't understand all the issues will not become able to do so from a superficial description on a list. They'd have to go away and learn more about pedalling in general. So what is it for?

[lostinidlewonder]

Because every time I raised the issue of what goes on under the surface, instead of following up on it (with either questions, requests for additional details or statements of your own on that particular issue) you instead attempted to stilt potential discussion by insisting that I have no business pointing out how superficial the listed descriptions are.

LOL, now comes excuses to avoid presenting us with the information you feel is missing.

I've made my point about how the organisational procedures that determine productivity lie below the surface. If you're interested in my views on these areas, how about trying to find out more via a question?

Enough questions, give us your answers. Oh but there has already been excuses laid out to avoid it. Oh well.

I haven't followed up on these issues because you have not shown the slightest interest in moving discussion beyond the surface issues in the list-

It is obvious then that you take things personally on internet discussion forums. I do not take things personally so don't be worried if I come across as harsh, I am not here to step on eggshells and beg for your respect so that you can to grace us with your knowledge.

You have only shown an interest in debating my right to have attempted to do so.

On the contrary it is YOU who constantly tries to pull down other peoples posts. My goodness, just look at your history of posts and almost every single one is a negative contribution disagreeing with someone statements and putting your own over the top. Don't be upset if some people throw in back in your face. Maybe you should try some "honey" instead of your "vinegar".

Ignoring something/actively questioning a person's right to go into a particular area of discussion is not a technique that typically inspires a person to go deeper into it (and is rightfully absent from the list).

People have the right to not discuss issues with you that are not of interest to them. Not everything you say is interesting or causes others to want to think on your terms. Speak on your own terms then and SHARE knowledge, stop trying to be a critic and put question to everyone, share something and contribute constructively.

I'm not going to bother now-

Hopefully this time you are serious.

... if you had a sincere interest in this issue you'd have taken it up at the outset, rather than done your best to prevent that line of discussion from having a chance to go any further.

But your discussions are full of negativity and anti knowledge pulling down peoples ideas (even if they are borrowed from internationally respected academic works as in the initial post). Tell me anyone who is interested in this? Only the person wanting to be negative. It is anti knowledge to me, I am not here to make friends I am here to talk aout piano and education. I will clinically debate you every time and our discussions will go no where unfortunately except stay on deflecting your negativity.

Then what is the list for? .... So what is it for?

Lol. You have the worst case of amnesia or forgetfulness I have come across on pianostreet.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am not going to waste any time offering theories on these issues. If you had a sincere interest, you would have taken up this line when I raised it- rather than tried to actively close it down. Any scope for fruitful discussion died a long time ago. Scarcely a single part of your post even relates to topical issues.

It is anti knowledge to me, I am not here to make friends I am here to talk aout piano and education.

So am I. Unfortunately, whenever I should happen to present a conflicting opinion to you, you depart from these topical subjects and start trying to tell me how I am permitted to conduct topical debate. What kind of debate does not involve open voicing of disagreement where it is honestly felt? Although it's too late for this thread, personally I'd rather just debate the issues- rather than get caught up having to defend the basic right to voice disagreement in an intellectual debate.

[j_menz]

Any scope for fruitful discussion died a long time ago.

And yet......

[lostinidlewonder]

I am not going to waste any time offering theories on these issues

So you admit it is a waste of time to elaborate, cool at least we agree.

Scarcely a single part of your post even relates to topical issues.

That is because I have someone responding to my threads and debating useless things.

Unfortunately, whenever I should happen to present a conflicting opinion to you, you depart from these topical subjects and start trying to tell me how I am permitted to conduct topical debate.

Because I have foresight to see if i take you serious the discussion will tangent off into oblivion. We both know that to understand the details of the list requires practical experience. Because this is thread is in the teaching section it is assumed that all teachers reading this can apply the list to the huge amount of practical knowledge that they already have. I am not here to offer people this practical knowledge which would be a requirement in finding the opening post in this thread useful.

[nyiregyhazi]

Because this is thread is in the teaching section it is assumed that all teachers reading this can apply the list to the huge amount of practical knowledge that they already have. I am not here to offer people this practical knowledge which would be a requirement in finding the opening post in this thread useful.

You've already made this point and I've already followed up on it. Specifically, if a teacher's practical knowledge does not naturally cause these events to be occurring in the first place (via an understanding of when the context is right) I do not believe that a teacher can crowbar them into usage. The efficacy of how the teacher inspires thought lies in their overall organisation- not in how many boxes they tick from a superficial list. It's a similar issue as with your pedalling list. A teacher who already has practical experience of everything listed just gets on with teaching it when it arises- whereas a teacher who does not cannot turn anything around via a superficial description of the surface issue. It's like coming up with a list of the different parts of the body that footballer can act upon the ball with.