Alternatives to questioning during discussion sessions

[lostinidlewonder]

N - You have not understood a thing that I have said.  You are responding to a fiction; to something that I am not saying.  This isn't working.

In addition, you are attributing attitudes and thoughts that I don't hold, and responding to these things.  That is disturbing.  Those are not my thoughts and not my attitudes.

But to make it worse you are now attacking my character when you don't know me: close-minded, disdain, and what know.  YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT I HAVE WRITTEN.  Please just leave it!

Well, this is a common pattern nyiregyhazi has with many members on pianostreet. Don't feel like it is your problem, because obviously it isn't.

[keypeg]

With willingness on the other side I might actually be able to iron out some misunderstandings, but I literally cannot afford the time and energy this would take.  I have been working intensely for long hours for over a week in my freelance work, and have to pace myself in how I spend my time.  My intent was to look at many angles.  If anything I wrote is useful for taking off somewhere then I'd be glad.

[nyiregyhazi]

With willingness on the other side I might actually be able to iron out some misunderstandings, but I literally cannot afford the time and energy this would take.  I have been working intensely for long hours for over a week in my freelance work, and have to pace myself in how I spend my time.  My intent was to look at many angles.  If anything I wrote is useful for taking off somewhere then I'd be glad.

 I'm not sure if you're actually clear on what I've been going on-which involves very few assumptions. You have repeatedly spoken damningly of what you call ritual and have not acknowledged so much as the possibility of any positives. It's a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater/ tarring EVERY element of a whole with a single brush (rather assessing each component on its own merits) . I've gone on precisely what you said, in the precise way you said it. If something makes a student listen more, it has a useful role- whether done as ritual or not. I am baffled by your complete dismissiveness on this issue- as I generally think of you as open minded. On this instance, you have not shown that. I have not read between any lines on this core issue and nothing you have stated makes me feel that the dismissiveness you explicitly showed represents anything other than your view on the matter. You have simply refused to acknowledge so much as the possibility of a single positive- which is what then leads me to deduce emotive dislike over rational (backed up your use of the phrase 'silly ritual' and refusal to acknowledge the clear fact that a child who enthusiastically raises a hand during a 'silly ritual' is participating and feeling more involved).

It doesn't matter if you don't like the principle of ritual. That does not change the fact that even the most mindless type can potentially achieve things. It's not about whether it's a ritual but whether it achieves results- and it is perfectly possible for BOTH of those to be so.

[keypeg]

N, you attach attitude to my posts.  I don't have those attitudes.  When I tell you that this is not how I feel about things, you again tell everyone that it is how I feel about things.  This is why I will no longer post on this subject.  And you've done it again.

[nyiregyhazi]

N, you attach attitude to my posts.  I don't have those attitudes.  When I tell you that this is not how I feel about things, you again tell everyone that it is how I feel about things.  This is why I will no longer post on this subject.  And you've done it again.

The attitude does not concern me. It's the blanket dismissal of any objective benefits to what you deem 'silly ritual'. That is something that has most certainly not been misinterpreted- unless what you wrote is in the most overwhelmingly direct conflict with what you believe. While the only logical explanation I can see is emotively based dislike, it's the irrational dismissal (asserted as if an absolute truth) that bothers me.

[keypeg]

For crying out loud.  You talk about my dismissing, condemning, and who knows what.  That IS the attitude you keep talking about.  I say over and over and over and over and over that you do NOT understand what I am saying, that you have it all WRONG ..... and then you go right back and talk about things I am not saying.  NEVER, ANYWHERE have I used words like "dismiss".

Stop putting words in my mouth.  Start understanding that what you see is not there.  I cannot discuss things that you purport I am saying, when those are not my thoughts.  Please end this!

[keyboardclass]

Can't you see the lady's had enough?  and you're certainly no gentleman!

[nyiregyhazi]

For crying out loud.  You talk about my dismissing, condemning, and who knows what.  That IS the attitude you keep talking about.  I say over and over and over and over and over that you do NOT understand what I am saying, that you have it all WRONG ..... and then you go right back and talk about things I am not saying.  NEVER, ANYWHERE have I used words like "dismiss".

Stop putting words in my mouth.  Start understanding that what you see is not there.  I cannot discuss things that you purport I am saying, when those are not my thoughts.  Please end this!

I didn't say you used the word dismiss. However to say something is "NOT participation" is to assert a dismissal, beyond any questions of either personal interpretation or linguistic accuracy. I could have quoted any one of countless things that you have written in this thread, in the same transparently dismissive vein. I'm sorry that you are taking this so personally, but I have only been defending the things that you directly dismissed in both the strongest and most explicit of terms. When you write dismissive comments, they will be taken at face value.

[keyboardclass]

Who's trolling now,
Who's trolling now.
To the tune of Who's Trolling Now.

[keypeg]

I could have quoted any one of countless things that you have written in this thread, in the same transparently dismissive vein.

Please look at what you just wrote - really consider it.  The "dismissive" part is your interpretation of what my words mean.  I came here just now to give it a try and define myself, but you are not budging an inch from your interpretations.  Have you never had in person conversations where someone says "That's not what I meant." and then try to find out what they DID mean?  Is everyone in your world a master speaker and master writer who manages to bring across everything they want to say in the right way, so that every single listener will have complete comprehension?  If so, then you must be in a unique environment of exceptional communication geniuses.  In my world, most people misunderstand each other most of the time to a greater or lesser degree.

[nyiregyhazi]

Please look at what you just wrote - really consider it.  The "dismissive" part is your interpretation of what my words mean.  I came here just now to give it a try and define myself, but you are not budging an inch from your interpretations.  Have you never had in person conversations where someone says "That's not what I meant." and then try to find out what they DID mean?  Is everyone in your world a master speaker and master writer who manages to bring across everything they want to say in the right way, so that every single listener will have complete comprehension?  If so, then you must be in a unique environment of exceptional communication geniuses.  In my world, most people misunderstand each other most of the time to a greater or lesser degree.

I'm sorry, but I took what you wrote exactly as you expressed it. Dismissal in not my interpretation. Dismissal is an objectively defined act- not a subjective interpretation. To assert that something is "NOT participation" is by definition an act of dismissal (just as answering a question is an act of participation). I don't ask everyone to be a master speaker. However I do ask people not to have a go at me for taking the most explicitly phrased dismissals as being precisely that. In an objective debate, you have to take responsibility for your own use of language. If you don't want something to read as an explicitly unequivocal dismissal, it's necessary to choose suitable language. Nobody can read your mind.

[keypeg]

I'm going to give this one try.  Please do NOT go back to every single word posted in the past.

I like teaching effectively.  I have been in a constant search for better ways of doing things for several decades.  Whomever I teach, whether group or individual, I'll adjust, problem-solve, discover what does and doesn't work.  After those decades I've discovered a few things which I tried to share. That's hard to do, because the underlying experiences can't be shared.  The bottom line is that there are many different ways of approaching things.  Also, what is right in one situation is wrong in another.  So one tries to present that.

Second thing.  You'll have to help me out in that one.  What is your own experience with teacher training since you started teaching?   Do you still apply what was taught in teacher's college in the same way?  Do you still take what is taught in educational psychology verbatim, or have you come to new insights along the way?  If you have found new insights, would you say you are "dismissing" what your profs gave you, or taking off on it, coming to something that is deeper and more effective?

I am not against any teaching device.  My core belief is that the FIRST thing any teacher needs is to understand the subject matter and have some insight into the student's learning style and maybe learning itself.  The teacher then uses teaching devices like one reaches for a hammer, paintbrush, or ladder --- you reach for what is needed, and you use it as suits the occasion.  If a teacher does that, then each and every single thing listed here is perfectly ok in my eyes.  But if for some reason teaching is reduced to following formulas without that, then it has the same emptiness that you highlighted for the same reason in one of your opening posts.

Are you not for the idea of using devices intelligently and creatively as the occasion demands, by a teacher who understands the subject matter and his student?  That is my basic premise.

[nyiregyhazi]

Your question implies a false dichotomy. Why can't a teacher use both intelligence AND scripted 'rituals'? This is precisely what I have been trying to put across to you. You are so caught up in speaking negatively about ritual, you seem to have overlooked that it can be done as mindlessly as you like and still have benefits. If you are not being dismissive, why do you fail to even acknowledge this as a mere possibility? The question is whether the teacher conducts the WHOLE lesson mindlessly. If the rest of lesson involves responses and adaptations, a portion of it can be as mindless and scripted as you like. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The question ritual involves the class and most effectively. It makes no sense to throw it out based on a false dichotomy.

[keypeg]

You have not answered my question.  I am trying to find common ground.  I have looked at what I was taught in teacher training and how that has evolved.  And so I asked quite directly what your experience is in regards to your own teacher training.  In fact, I don't know whether they taught you the same things they taught me.  Was educational psychology presented the same way?  Concepts of learning stages?  Etc?  We can't discuss undefined things.

I am ignoring the fact that you again insist on being able to read my mind and tell me what I am thinking, and even telling me that I am not thinking what I say I am.  NOBODY I have ever met is that omniscient, including close friends and family.  You do not know me.

[keypeg]

Your question implies a false dichotomy. Why can't a teacher use both intelligence AND scripted 'rituals'? This is precisely what I have been trying to put across to you. You are so caught up in speaking negatively about ritual, you seem to have overlooked that it can be done as mindlessly as you like and still have benefits. If you are not being dismissive, why do you fail to even acknowledge this as a mere possibility? The question is whether the teacher conducts the WHOLE lesson mindlessly. If the rest of lesson involves responses and adaptations, a portion of it can be as mindless and scripted as you like. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The question ritual involves the class and most effectively. It makes no sense to throw it out based on a false dichotomy.

I redefined things from scratch, and said I was doing so.  This is what I wrote:

I am not against any teaching device.  My core belief is that the FIRST thing any teacher needs is to understand the subject matter and have some insight into the student's learning style and maybe learning itself.  The teacher then uses teaching devices like one reaches for a hammer, paintbrush, or ladder --- you reach for what is needed, and you use it as suits the occasion.  If a teacher does that, then each and every single thing listed here is perfectly ok in my eyes.  But if for some reason teaching is reduced to following formulas without that, then it has the same emptiness that you highlighted for the same reason in one of your opening posts.

Please point out the negativity.    The only possible negative thing would be the last sentence - do you disagree with that sentence?

[keypeg]

I am giving notice that my dialog on this subject with Niereghazi is ended because I have not been successful at bringing across what I actually want to say despite even the last attempt.  It is taking up too much of my time, and I am falling behind in my work.  I believe that my actual attitudes are not that hard to understand and can't be responsible for whatever rut the understanding of this has fallen into.

I'm not going to keep going in this circle:
- You mean X.
- No, I don't mean X.  I am saying Y.
- I insist that your Y is X.
- My thought is Y.  Let me clarify.
- You mean X.
etc.

I will NOT respond to more of the same.  Period.

[nyiregyhazi]

At no point have you written anything to retract the EXPLICIT dismissals made in earlier posts. If you're not going to do so-by acknowledging that even the most scripted/ritualistic behaviour can still serve a function, there is nowhere for this to go. We're left with a blanket dismissal portrayed as unquestionable truth that you have not moved on from (or even addressed any counterarguments to) . There is no scope to progress unless you specifically retract it and acknowledge the value that you previously dismissed outright.

I didn't answer your question about teaching with intelligence for the simple reason that I have never suggested anything that would imply I do not believe in it- hence the false dichotomy I pointed out instead of answering. The point is that this does not make ALSO using scripted questions routines (or 'rituals'- if it's really necessary to use such a term) any less valuable. It is not a situation where you can only have one or the other. Seeing value in a does not mean excluding b.

[nyiregyhazi]

I redefined things from scratch, and said I was doing so.  This is what I wrote:
Please point out the negativity.    The only possible negative thing would be the last sentence - do you disagree with that sentence?

I didn't say it was negative. I pointed out that it fails to acknowledge that even the most thoughtless question ritual can involve kids and inspire listening - which your words do not even allow for as a possibility. They actively suggest impossibility of that. If it's between a thoughtless one-way lecture and a thoughtless lecture that also involves question rituals, the latter is more involving and will get more attention- not due to detailed analytical thoughts but due to the involvement. The latter might even be a half decent lesson, if the script is good enough. The former is not only dull but places a barrier between students and the teacher.

Realising that some things can still have a positive effect without any significant guiding intelligence does not mean wishing to ban guiding intelligence.

[keypeg]

You are discussing things that I am not saying.  "It" (what you imagine) could fail any number of things.  But "it" is not what I said.

Please note that I will no longer discuss this for the reasons I mentioned above.

[nyiregyhazi]

You are discussing things that I am not saying.  "It" (what you imagine) could fail any number of things.  But "it" is not what I said.

Please note that I will no longer discuss this for the reasons I mentioned above.

Umn, actually it was precisely that. "It" was the passage you quoted from yourself in the preceding post, asking what was negative. I was following up, referring to what the passage you had referenced had failed to recognise as being valid. I have referred to nothing but what you keep saying over and over- and on every occasion without the slightest recognition of the fact that scripted "ritual" CAN have positive effects even when done simply because the book says so. I don't get the impression that you actually understand what I am objecting to or why it constitutes a dismissive attitude. You have kept saying I am misinterpreting you- while making comments that fully clarify that you mean precisely what I have been taking you to mean.

[nyiregyhazi]

In short, what I am saying is that doing something by the book (even if ONLY because it says so, rather than out of special insight as to why) can often be more useful than omitting that same act. Every single post you have made either fails to acknowledge and then follow up on that fact or most specifically and unequivocally asserts otherwise (without any direct reasoning or justification as to why you feel such certainty, as to dismiss this notion altogether).

[keypeg]

.

[keypeg]

.

[keypeg]

I was overwhelmed with work and had to withdraw from the topic.   I think that there are at least two things going on.  The first is that I was trying to present a broader view of teaching as it evolved for me, meaning other possibilities.  My post was meant for teachers doing it professionally and having training in their field as well as training in teaching.  If you have that knowledge then it makes sense to me to use it rather than following formulas, but to use those formulas as tools.  The main thrust of my posts were meant to highlight what CAN be done, how we can go beyond these things.

Niereghazi, you have moved beyond how you were taught to play physically.  You advocate experimenting, discovering what works for the body.  What if someone said that this is wrong, that you should go back and do only what is officially taught with no experimentation and no exploration.  What if they equated what you are trying to show as being disrespect for official teachings, and if they said that these things should be followed without questioning?

Because you have the attitude of experimentation and striving toward what works, I naturally assumed that you would be open to the same thing anywhere else.

Now, you were taught things that you eventually discovered didn't work well - you studied these things for a while.  What I still don't know - while I have moved beyond the pedagogy that I learned from my professors - is whether you are in the same place.  Did you also study pedagogy in depth and experiment with the ideas behind it?  Because if you haven't, then we are in different places.  I used these things as my first basis of teaching, and then moved past them.

What I have been advocating repeatedly is using devices as TOOLS, but not as the whole of our teaching.  I cannot see how you would be against that, given your attitude for everything else.   You would be denying your own approaches.

That's it for the first part, which involves what I was aiming toward.

[keypeg]

In regards to this (the other aspect):

In short, what I am saying is that doing something by the book (even if ONLY because it says so, rather than out of special insight as to why) can often be more useful than omitting that same act.

Tbh, I had never considered this either way.  I was going from the premise that to teach something we ought to know about the subject and how to teach.  I did not concern myself about whether one should do something by the book.

Ok, we have the scenario of inexperience.  Supposing someone decides to teach music and is still a student, and has no pedagogy - something that happens often enough on PS.  There are method books that were put together by people who thought things through, so that basic concepts are introduced in a particular order, music is organized in a logical way.  Even if the teacher doesn't understand much yet, there will be logic in lessons when using such a series, and that will help both student and teacher.  Otoh, an experienced teacher may see a reason for teaching this student differently, choosing different material, presenting concepts in a different order and in a different manner.

When we start out teaching we need guidelines.  If we are thrown into teaching something we have not yet mastered then we want to grab whatever we can.  That's the plus side of it.

But I have also seen harm which I have had to undo as a teacher because of blind following by my predecessors, and I have been harmed as a music student.  I've taught generally bright students who were in major confusion because of how they had been taught, where the answer had been more of the same.  I have seen causes for confusion in how we were told to teach, and I simply will not do that to a student.  As a music student at this present time various harmful things are being undone with the help of a teacher who does have the capacity to think for himself and has thorough understanding, because of someone going by the (wrong) book without really understanding what they were doing, because the book said so, and the book was sacrosanct.  Fortunately this was for a relatively brief period, but still long enough that it set me back by several years.  And it was unnecessary.

On a personal level, if given the choice between a teacher who follows rules blindly, and a teacher who knows her subject, observes her student, and is a thinker, I would avoid the first and go for the second - simply because of my experiences both as teacher and as student.

AGAIN: my position is that formulas and devices are good TOOLS to use, as needed.

[keypeg]

Finally, part of my reaction is to what I experienced as a teacher.  I asked you several times about your own experiences, and it is possible that we don't have common ground.  There are things such as the following:

- The "book" said that cursive writing gets taught in grade 3, not grade 2.  I saw that several of my students were more than ready to learn cursive writing, and they actually came to me asking to learn it.  Children in other countries were learning it at that age.  One learning disabled boy who was already 9 would benefit from cursive writing according to the specialist, because it would allow him to see words as a whole instead of fragmented.  Should I have gone by the book and not allow those children to learn this, when my professional understanding and training said otherwise?

As a side note, I have met several young men and women of that generation who half-print because by the time cursive writing was taught they were too entrenched in printing.

- The "book" prescribes teaching negative and positive numbers via red and green (blue?) plastic counters.  I have taught half a dozen kids whose sole difficulty with algebra and pre-algebra was that they could not make sense of these colored counters.  They breezed through it when we bypassed them.  If 100% of students are brought into difficulty by a methodology, why use it?

- I have cited direct feedback from students on what does and does not work for them.  Should we discount this?  Or use it?  Same question about observed results.

[pianowolfi]

Well, this is a common pattern nyiregyhazi has with many members on pianostreet. Don't feel like it is your problem, because obviously it isn't.

True. Same with Keyboardclass.

I'm much more interested in reading many more posts by experienced teachers and musicians like keypeg and lostinidlewonder, than more posts of these two. It's like a catfight. To me they seem to be caught up in a hamster wheel. Pointless after all.

Just try to ignore them.

But on the other hand, nyiregyhazy is a good pianist, I think. It's not a good thing when artists get caught up in a so called "scientific" attitude. They have to be artists. They don't need to justify themselves in front of the "holy judges of science".
"Science" is often limping far behind. We can't keep up with "science" and "science" can't keep up with art. *True* scientists though will always understand true artists from the core, and vice versa.

Play and practice, and teach, and live your musical life!

[keypeg]

But on the other hand, nyiregyhazy is a good pianist, I think. It's not a good thing when artists get caught up in a so called "scientific" attitude. They have to be artists. They don't need to justify themselves in front of the "holy judges of science".
"Science" is often limping far behind. We can't keep up with "science" and "science" can't keep up with art.

The thing that I don't get is that what I presented is very much in line with what nyireghazy has presented: you start with something you got taught that doesn't work, you experiment, and find better ways.  If you look at his blog, it's all about experimenting and not taking things for granted.  Then when I present exactly the same thing, suddenly it's not ok.  Suddenly one is to stay with the status quo, follow it blindly just because it got written in some book.  That is neither artistic, nor is it scientific.  Something is seriously off here.

[nyiregyhazi]

But on the other hand, nyiregyhazy is a good pianist, I think. It's not a good thing when artists get caught up in a so called "scientific" attitude. They have to be artists. They don't need to justify themselves in front of the "holy judges of science".
"Science" is often limping far behind. We can't keep up with "science" and "science" can't keep up with art. *True* scientists though will always understand true artists from the core, and vice versa.

Play and practice, and teach, and live your musical life!

You misunderstand the purpose. I'm not trying to use science to prove anything to anyone about either my playing or myself. A person's level of attainment just is what it is, regardless of what words are written. I've explored mechanics for the simple reason that it enables me to improve on what my level is-both in terms of technique and in terms of my ability to realise musical intentions. I don't care if any one individual believes or disbelieve the background issues. I am putting out there because I have found it to be of extreme practical use. Anyone else is freely welcome to take it or leave it. I just happen to feel that objective analysis of efficiency and impact issues is so important, that it's crazy not to go into it.

[nyiregyhazi]

The thing that I don't get is that what I presented is very much in line with what nyireghazy has presented: you start with something you got taught that doesn't work, you experiment, and find better ways.  If you look at his blog, it's all about experimenting and not taking things for granted.  Then when I present exactly the same thing, suddenly it's not ok.  Suddenly one is to stay with the status quo, follow it blindly just because it got written in some book.  That is neither artistic, nor is it scientific.  Something is seriously off here.

? Without having a book the whole thing would be random experimentation. The point is that sometimes doing what the book says (even if for no other reason that because it says so) IS effective. Most of the above words are an extrapolation that I have not made and would not make. I have repeatedly used the word can. Can does not mean always. It just means recognising the objective fact that some things really can just work- rather than refusing to acknowledge that this might be possible in even a single situation. I only asked you to recognise that simple point- not speculative extrapolations that it do not automatically follow on from it. Realising that a less than fantastic teacher may achieve far better results with the 'rituals' that you despise (whether they deeply understand them or not) does not mean also thinking that everyone should follow the book blindly.

[keyboardclass]

I just happen to feel that objective analysis of efficiency and impact issues is so important, that it's crazy not to go into it.

Yes, but that's your fault.   If the analysis is carried out by the subject himself it can hardly be called 'objective' and therefore science.  It's anecdote.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, but that's your fault.   If the analysis is carried out by the subject himself it can hardly be called 'objective' and therefore science.  It's anecdote.

You do not understand mechanics then. The theory regarding issues of efficiency and impact is not founded on subjective personal feelings. It can be objectively related to theoretically solid issues of momentum and energy etc. For example, if you can reduce the level of momentum required to accelerate a key (in a way that does not compromise that acceleration) , you also reduce scope for impact.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussion with a party who has no interest in anything but trolling. Troll away and write whatever unsubstantiated accusations you like. Idle hearsay that comes with no supporting evidence does not trouble me in the least. Thought-provoking and informed criticisms would be interesting, but idle cynicism is just tedious.

[keyboardclass]

You can't be both subject and object - that's very poor science indeed.  Calling me a troll won't alter that fact.

[nyiregyhazi]

You can't be both subject and object - that's very poor science indeed.  Calling me a troll won't alter that fact.

I have not got the slightest idea as to what that is even supposed to mean- although you would appear to be confusing philosophy with scientific method.

[keyboardclass]

I have not got the slightest idea as to what that is even supposed to mean.

You wouldn't, you're not a scientist.

[keypeg]

You do not understand mechanics then.

Starting point.

You are a physics student or physicist.  Therefore from your knowledge base you know what works, and what probably doesn't work.  You have also had personal experience in your playing where you had problems by applying certain principles that you were taught.  Through experimentation and your prior knowledge you found things that work, and you presented them.

It would be foolish for someone who has not studied physics to make a blanket statement that the principles of physics you expound don't exist.  It would also be foolish to state that your experiments and results could not exist, without carrying them out, or without having experienced something similar.

Likewise I have come in with my field of expertise and my experiences.  I don't like to come out with background because usually people's words speak for themselves and it smacks of one-upmanship which I don't like.  That said, I have a degree in education which includes post-degree advanced studies and then did additional studies related to effective and alternative teaching which included observations in the classroom, talking with teachers and students, and reading literature.  I tested teaching approaches in teaching, and was able to resolve a number of difficult cases where students having problems stopped having problems.  This was due to some of the approaches that I tried to express here, and why I shared them.

I can't even tell if you are refuting anything I am saying.  You just seem to be doggedly against it in some way.  There is never anything concrete.  The thing is that I don't know whether you have any of my background.  Whether you attended teachers college, or studied pedagogy in any way, including behavioural psychology and classroom management (which is what raising hands is about).  I don't know if you are up on the politics of school systems, and how the needs of "management" and "pleasing the public" can interfere with effective teaching.  Therefore I don't know whether, literally, you are aware of the things that I placing under consideration.  You SEEM to be talking in vague abstracts.  I am tying this in to your background in physics and experiences as a student overcoming a technical problem.  Nobody should consider what you are saying without looking at your experiences and shared knowledge in your field.  Well, it's the same here.

I truly hope you are still not hung up on that one word "ritual" from a month ago.  Discussion evolve.  People redefine in better ways.  It has become a red herring and detracts.

[keypeg]

Making it very simple. (N) - You draw on physics, and you overcame harm in how you were taught to play before.  You invite students or musicians to experiment and find what works, and you guide along that way.

Supposing somebody has a book that says one must not experiment in this way, a student must follow the kinds of instructions that harmed your playing and do so blindly, and teachers must not question this book but follow it blindly.  Supposing this is a new teacher who is not finished learning, and in addition manifests technical problems that are probably due to those very things.  Would you want that teacher to follow that book, and would you allow yourself or a child of yours to become that person's student?

This is about as clear as I can be about what kinds of things I am, and am not, talking about.

[keyboardclass]

Starting point.

You are a physics student or physicist. 

No.  He has equivalent grade 12/13 mechanics.

[keypeg]

I want to get off the side issues that have kept this thread busy and  look closer at what actually started this topic.

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. 

I guess I'm back at square one.  In a classroom environment we may have a page in our curriculum guidelines that wants us to grade students on "participation in discussions" or teach them to discuss as a skill in and of itself.  The latter is valid.  But other than that - say in music - our discussion has a purpose.

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.

I think that this depends on the (perceived) role of the teacher and the reason for the discussion.  If a teacher is the leader and expert then if he summarizes what he has taught, it may be the student's perceived role to pay attention and make note.  In fact - here is a question for music teachers - it has happened that something I've been told gives me new ideas and if I express them I'm told that I am "interrupting" the flow of lessons.  I have had the impression that in one-on-one lessons teachers do not want that kind of participation.  What they do seem to want is "Can you explain that part?" or "Can you demonstrate?" "...because I'm not sure I understood.

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.

I have seen this in guidelines for leadership positions as well.  This is important because all too often we think we have understood what others say, or otoh a learner may not be able to express himself clearly.  As student I have heard my discoveries worded in a new and more knowledgeable way which has given me insights on my insights.   

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.

Given the "respect for the expert" this may be good, because the student may not know his own thoughts are welcome.

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.

This one bothered me somewhat, because if the teacher is not genuinely perplexed, it is insincere.  But if it is part of a learning game that both are aware of, it could be fun.  It can also teach identifying problems and finding 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.

In addition, it gives the skill of thinking things through.

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.

I don't know why this one bothers me.  I'm more inclined to the student spontaneously talking to people in his entourage and let the exploration flow where it will.  But I don't know why it bothers me.

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.

Words are overrated.  Having a moment of silence is good because everyone needs it.

[nyiregyhazi]

I can't even tell if you are refuting anything I am saying.  You just seem to be doggedly against it in some way.  There is never anything concrete.  The thing is that I don't know whether you have any of my background.  Whether you attended teachers college, or studied pedagogy in any way, including behavioural psychology and classroom management (which is what raising hands is about).  I don't know if you are up on the politics of school systems, and how the needs of "management" and "pleasing the public" can interfere with effective teaching.  Therefore I don't know whether, literally, you are aware of the things that I placing under consideration.  You SEEM to be talking in vague abstracts.  I am tying this in to your background in physics and experiences as a student overcoming a technical problem.  Nobody should consider what you are saying without looking at your experiences and shared knowledge in your field.  Well, it's the same here.

Look- I just made one specific point. Nobody's background has any bearing on that one point and whether we agree on other issues is another issue in itself. I made that single specific point because I happen to feel that it is relevant.

I simply happen to think that it's important to realise that doing something by the book (purely because that's how it's normally done) often CAN be more effective than even intelligent attempts to find an alternative. Hence my disagreement, when you made statements that excluded the possibility of this being so.

Can you just either acknowledge that point or explain why you refuse to acknowledge that this is objectively true? There is only an issue here if you deny the validity of the above paragraph. If you do, please address it directly- not with reference to scenarios that it does not refer to. I used the word "CAN" for a reason. I didn't argue against anything else you said and neither did I say I was arguing with anything else. I disagreed on this specific issue. It does not follow by extension that I am questioning your teaching credentials (which have nothing to do with whether a single assertion can be regarded as objectively accurate) or that I agree/disagree on any other individual issues. I made a single specific point to you- a point that stands alone.

[nyiregyhazi]

Making it very simple. (N) - You draw on physics, and you overcame harm in how you were taught to play before.  You invite students or musicians to experiment and find what works, and you guide along that way.

Supposing somebody has a book that says one must not experiment in this way, a student must follow the kinds of instructions that harmed your playing and do so blindly, and teachers must not question this book but follow it blindly.  Supposing this is a new teacher who is not finished learning, and in addition manifests technical problems that are probably due to those very things.  Would you want that teacher to follow that book, and would you allow yourself or a child of yours to become that person's student?

This is about as clear as I can be about what kinds of things I am, and am not, talking about.

And if this particular teacher didn't use the book? Would they be an effective teacher? And if they had learned from a better book (which helped them, without them ever really understanding why)? Would that be better than if they had been self-taught and tried to figure out the secrets of both achieving technique and passing it on to others?

There aren't simple answers here. That's why keeping an open-mind towards the possibility that the book has something to offer (whether you understand it deeply or not) makes sense. Many bad pianists will do a lot better by following a good book (even without fully understanding it), than by trying to carve their own route as a teacher without one. The same is even true of some good pianists (some of whom will teach far better by using someone else's explanations than by attempting to find their own, for what they think they are doing).

[keypeg]

.

[keypeg]

Here is my opinion:

It is good for teachers to understand their subject, and to understand teaching.

That's it in a nutshell.  Nothing else.

I moved on and went back to the original topic.  Let's stay there please.

[keypeg]

I simply happen to think that it's important to realise that doing something by the book (purely because that's how it's normally done) often CAN be more effective than even intelligent attempts to find an alternative. Hence my disagreement, when you made statements that excluded the possibility of this being so.

I have never ever thought that it is not possible to learn from some book.  So you are disagreeing with something fictitious.  Can we please leave it?

[j_menz]

we please leave it?

History would, sadly, appear to indicate that that is unlikely. 

Much to be desired, though.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have never ever thought that it is not possible to learn from some book.  So you are disagreeing with something fictitious.  

Neither the passage you quoted nor anything I have written attributes such an opinion to you. I made my point in the most deliberately specific and explicit language- under the presumption that it would surely prevent quite such a major misinterpretation as the above.

I simply happen to think that it's important to realise that doing something by the book (purely because that's how it's normally done) often CAN be more effective than even intelligent attempts to find an alternative.

The clause in brackets was not optional in the sentence. Accurate reading of what I stated is entirely conditional upon it being included. The sentence does not generically point out that sometimes the book is useful. It more specifically points out that even without guiding intelligence, a book approach can sometimes prove to be more effective than a seemingly intelligent individual alternative. If you do not address this specific point, you are not addressing a point I have made.

Seeing as you are clearly not seeing the relevance of what I am talking about (when presented in an abstract form) I'll illustrate the sheer significance via an example:

In the past, I fell into the trap of paying little attention to letters and instead teaching students to think by interval. Thinking that I knew better than the "book" approach, I actively encouraged students to think this way. I did not do so while thinking to myself- well this is probably unintelligent, but what the hell? I did so under the realisation that my own reading of notes had more to with this than with individual letters. While there was indeed intelligence in the concept, by failing to ALSO maintain adequate reference to musical lettering, I fell into the trap of producing some students who did not pick up the lettering on the way. Had I simply taught by the book approach of rote learning (even if without the slightest guiding thought or intelligence), the students would likely have come to notice the intervallic reading anyway, and would have read more fluently.

This is just one example among many possible ones. I objected to what you wrote because it specifically not only overlooked these possibilities, but used language that specifically excluded the possibility that sometimes the most unintelligent use of the book works better than an alternative that stems from intelligent observation. The fact that rigid adherence to the book is often a bad thing does not change the fact that equally undesirable things can easily arise by departing from it. No matter how sound the intelligence might seem, nobody sees everything. Overlook one small thing and what is almost extremely intelligent can suddenly become less effective than simply doing things for the sake of a simplistic "ritual". Things like rote learning and ritual evolved for a good reason. Just because excessive dependence on these is undesirable, it does not mean that even the most unintelligent use of the "book" approach cannot produce some effective results.

These are not minor issues. Please don't respond in a tone that suggests this is somehow intended as a commentary on your own teaching. It isn't. It's a commentary on the fact that stories have two sides to them. If you only look at it in terms of how much harm a bad book can potentially do, you only present one half of the story (especially when your argument is based on assuming that it happens to be a bad book). The other side of the story is equally important. It's easy to be a casual maverick, but it's not anywhere near as easy to have the sheer width of vision as to ensure that any departures from the book (which can often be a damned good book) are superior to adhering to it. I am not being pedantic, in raising these issues. I am presenting the other side of the coin- on this SPECIFIC issue and no other.

[keypeg]

I was writing about my own teaching and my own experiences and it was meant only as such.  I never, never, ever had any position against teaching by any book.  You have continually objected to something that I never represented in my life.

Ok, so now we've moved on to your own examples and thoughts, which is a new thing.  Yes, I agree that it is not wise to blandly dismiss something, whatever it is, that you find in a book.  You gave an example of letter names.  I do not do that.  But in fact you support the actual thing that I was representing: that it is preferable for a teacher to understand his subject, and to understand teaching.  Therefore you realized that those letter names had merit, because you continued to seek and evolve in your teaching.  You cannot do that if you are in a state of ignorance, because you have to know enough to recognize things.

I have described the blue and red counters for teaching negative and positive integers.  When I saw this in the curriculum guidelines the first time, I was curious about it.  I could also see the thought behind it.  What bothered me at the time is that we were taught to create our own lesson plans, rather than having a methodology prescribed to us - this was not the role I expected of a trained teacher.  What happened next, however, is that I was called by various students or their parents, and all these students were having the same difficulty.  It was always caused by this way of teaching via those colored blocks.  In each instant, teaching in a more sensible manner removed their problem.  The kids understood the concept and could do the math, where they could not before, and that is what counted.  If I ran into someone who absolutely gobbled up the idea of numbers morphing into blue and red, then I would use blocks.  But I'd be able to choose, because I know something and that allows me to guide.  My primary point was about knowledge - and thus knowledgeable use of books too - not about books per se.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was writing about my own teaching and my own experiences and it was meant only as such.  I never, never, ever had any position against teaching by any book.  You have continually objected to something that I never represented in my life.

Did you read the first paragraph of my post? The one in which I mentioned the fact that I never attributed any such position to you? Why are you falsely attributing this attribution to me? I am being specific for a reason. I disagree with what I specifically state that I disagree with- not things that are roughly in the same region (if you ignore key words within sentences). If you going to treat specifics that determine the accurate meaning as being optional for inclusions within a sentence, you're not going to understand what I am saying. You seem to think I'm arguing against countless things that I am not and that I am attributing opinions to you that I am not.

But in fact you support the actual thing that I was representing: that it is preferable for a teacher to understand his subject, and to understand teaching.  Therefore you realized that those letter names had merit, because you continued to seek and evolve in your teaching.  You cannot do that if you are in a state of ignorance, because you have to know enough to recognize things.

Of course. So what does that mean in practise? Teachers have to decide not to be ignorant and it will therefore become so? This is where the problem lies. I alluded to these issues in my last post. It's not as simple as being able to decide that x is just a "silly ritual" and it can be casually abandoned (with no risk of losing something important)- unless the teacher is a genius who misses nothing. I am not saying I have a simple answer for how to pick and choose, but my point is that it's not as simple as deciding to do things intelligently and therefore suceeding in being better than the book whenever you should depart from it. Everyone will naturally be thinking that their version is better. The question is whether they have the level intelligence to actually be better- or whether you (as in "one"- not a personalised you) routinely throw out useful things (due to having missed what makes them of value).

It's all very easy to say to get rid of bad things and to bring in your own better things to replace them. The point is that you first have to be in a position of 100% certainty about what is what. That is not an easy thing and cannot be casually undertaken. Some teachers will inevitably do worse by trying to find their own paths than by sticking to the book- and that does not necessarily mean they are bad teachers.
 
I have never once suggested that it's not desirable for a teacher to have intelligence and to use it. However, when you consider how an unintelligent teacher can still do some things well by adhering to a textbook, it reveals a lot of things that will serve to guide the process of trying to make intelligent descisions. I think that the realisation that sometimes even doing the most mindless book approach can be more effective than what appears to me a more intelligent alternative is a big part of going on to make an intelligent balance (rather than slip into being a "maverick" who might actually just be rather sloppy about the details). Not everything in the book is perfect. But realising how effective some of it is (EVEN WHEN DONE UNINTELLIGENTLY- words which must be included for an accurate reading of this sentence) is a key part of being in a position to be sure that the departures you do make ARE intelligent- and not simply the result of casual disregard for the values in the textbook approach. That's why it should be viewed from both sides.

[keypeg]

. I disagree with what I specifically state that I disagree with

Yes, but I have nothing to do with these things.  In the past you have asked whether I "admitted" things, as though they were refutations of some thought of mine.  You are disagreeing with a particular idea that you described.   It's not my idea.

It's not as simple as being able to decide that x is just a "silly ritual" and it can be casually abandoned.

Well, would anyone do that?  You start with having an idea of how and what you want to teach and why, and you see what works.  Where does the idea of silly ritual come in?

but my point is that it's not as simple as deciding to do things intelligently and therefore suceeding in being better than the book whenever you should depart from it.

I cannot identify with that.  To begin with, books have always been tools for me, and I have never taught "by" a book, just like I would not teach "by" a pencil.  I was taught to create teaching goals, find tools, activities, create lesson plans.  Books were part of the tools.

Everyone will naturally be thinking that their version is better.

I can't identify with that either.  I don't have a "version".    I teach.  A book is a tool for that teaching. 

It's all very easy to say to get rid of bad things and to bring in your own better things to replace them. 

I can't identify with this either.  There is no bad thing to get rid of.  Their is a choosing of tools.

. Some teachers will inevitably do worse by trying to find their own paths than by sticking to the book- and that does not necessarily mean they are bad teachers.

WHAT book?  Why do you keep writing about books?

However, when you consider how an unintelligent teacher can still do some things well by adhering to a textbook, it reveals a lot of things that will serve to guide the process of trying to make intelligent decisions.

I have no idea how unintelligent teachers do things well by adhering to textbooks.  I can imagine that intelligent students can teach themselves well through textbooks and the poor teacher is redundant.  But in any case, a textbook is a tool to be used.

departures you do make ARE intelligent- and not simply the result of casual disregard for the values in the textbook approach.

Again, I can't identify with this.  One does not "depart" from a textbook. One uses a textbook.  The textbook does not do the planning.  A textbook is a tool for the teaching.

[nyiregyhazi]

Well, would anyone do that?  You start with having an idea of how and what you want to teach and why, and you see what works.  Where does the idea of silly ritual come in?

If it were that simple, all teachers would automatically become great teachers. There's a balance between sticking to traditional approaches and experimenting, that must somehow be found. Some stick too much to tradition and others depart too casually. But it's not as simple as "seeing what works" and it automatically leading to good results. Neither is it as simple as dismissing a traditional approach as "silly" and being in a position to be sure that nothing is lost from seeking alternatives. Some teachers will do better by sticking to a clear scheme, than by experimenting. Even intelligent attempts to find alternatives can overlook good reasons why the more traditional approach emerged.

I can't identify with this either.  There is no bad thing to get rid of.  Their is a choosing of tools.WHAT book?  Why do you keep writing about books?

Doing thing by the "book" is a standard phrase that refers to tradition. What you might perhaps call "ritual". It is not a literal book.