The role of teaching ideals vs. the reality of learning?

[m1469]

I am currently reviewing some thoughts of mine from 10 years ago on the subject of building a private teaching studio and the importance of music education for the public.  It's been a bit of a mind-opener to read my thoughts back then and compare those thoughts to what it's been like to be actually in the field for a decade now. 

I am in the process of redefining several things to myself with regard to teaching, and it dawns on me that perhaps the reality of teaching actually has very little do with ideals.  What do you think?  What practical role do you think a teacher's ideals play in the reality of students' learning?

[m1469]

I'm reading this site: https://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/philosophy/start/index.html
and going through this process outlined (which I am loving every minute of, actually).  And I am at this section, here, which I am defining:

"Your concept of teaching: Note your values, beliefs, and aspirations as a teacher. (For example, do you wish to encourage mastery, competency, transformational learning, life-long learning, general transference of skills, critical thinking, etc.) What does a perfect teaching situation look like to you? Why do you consider this "perfect"? What is your role as a teacher? Are you a coach, a general, an evangelist, an entertainer?"

I want to encourage transformational learning, that's what I've always wanted but didn't realize there was a name for it!  It's exciting to see it there and I somehow feel like that's what I was built for.  But, does that truly preclude those other types?  It doesn't seem like it would!

BOOM ...

[m1469]

I am utterly fascinated at the moment, because I feel like my thoughts have somewhere new to go with these things, or because something is happening at the right time and in the right way ... or what?  I don't know!  But, here is a portion from Wiki's definition of "learning theory" and the three main categories:

"There are three main categories of learning theory: behaviourism, cognitive, and constructivism. Behaviourism focuses only on the objectively observable aspects of learning. Cognitive theories look beyond behaviour to explain brain-based learning. And constructivism views learning as a process in which the learner actively constructs or builds new ideas or concepts.

Merriam and Caffarella (1991) highlight four approaches or orientations to learning: Behaviourist, Cognitivist, Humanist, and Social/Situational. These approaches involve contrasting ideas as to the purpose and process of learning and education - and the role that educators may take"

Also, I read from a couple of books today, one of those being "Piano Mastery, the Harriette Brower Interviews" and read about Mr. Almon Kincaid and Mrs. Florence Virgil, and their approach and thoughts on teaching.  They mentioned:

"We believe in teaching music and piano playing on educational principles.  The trouble seem to be that musicians are not educators, therefore they do not teach music along educational lines, nor with the same thoroughness used for other educational subjects.

(...)

A great deal of harm is being done by some artists who are not educators but who are besieged for lessons because of their great success on the concert platform."

I know these things touch on some issues we've talked about (and debated about) on the forum before, but somehow I am experiencing some kind of new awakening with this.  

[ted]

I am sure there is much of value in all these theories, even if they are all above my head. With the hindsight of sixty years I realise that of the hundreds of teachers I had at school, only two or three really taught at a level of any depth or enthusiasm. Yes, they were idealists of the first water. In fact, I doubt they would last five minutes in today's politically correct educational environment. They were eccentric in some ways, unafraid of expounding their personal beliefs and philosophy in the classroom (that alone would have them out on their ears these days), unafraid of using discipline and instilling self-discipline in their charges, and unafraid of being personally concerned about the children in their care. The same three names have come up with fondness and respect at every school reunion I have attended, even among those who disliked them during their schooldays.

Aside from being one on one, music teachers are the same. I was phenomenally lucky with both my music teachers in my childhood and youth, as I learned when I took the odd farcical lesson in my mature years. So for my money, idealism is essential, a sense that something is going on aside from a commercial exchange of facts and services. Now exactly what that something is may vary a great deal with people and circumstances, but if it is absent, a pupil, especially a young person, will perceive its lack immediately.

Of course one should not try to teach, however idealistically, things one cannot do or knows nothing about; that is just common sense. But it seems many music teachers endeavour to do precisely that, at least around where I live. I know because I hear about it from people who have paid good money and been strung along for months getting nowhere. It appals me.

You need both - ability and idealism.

This bloke looks pretty interesting as far as teachers go:

 

[keypeg]

I'm coming at this both as a teacher and from some experiences I've had as an adult music student.  I have concluded that the most important thing for a teacher to do is to give a student skills so that the student becomes competent in what he or she is learning.  When that happens a lot of other things fall into place, such as a student's lack of confidence or lack of self-esteem.  Rather than addressing the "psychology" of a student or going after "behaviour modification", check first if you are passing on skills and know how to do so. 

Being able to create skills is not that easy.  The teacher has to know the subject inside out, and know how to teach it.  It is not good enough to have mastered it yourself.  A talented pianist might have the hardest time teaching things that came naturally to him as a child, because he never had to think about it and so doesn't know how to break it down and transmit it.  A student who flounders and feels stupid will not be getting self-esteem.

I'd say that there are two stages to learning to play (or learning anything).  The first is to get the building blocks.  That includes every basic concept from knowing where the notes are, that there are notes, sitting and moving, reading, to knowing how to practice, how to approach a piece, and knowing how to work with a teacher.  These are very powerful things and not always valued enough.  The other element is the artistic side of interpreting music, making the music come alive and become beautiful.  Some teachers who excel at the second are not that good at the first.  The concert performer who gets a beginner may fail at giving the building blocks, and not understand why his student is struggling.

Our society also gets in the way.  Kids are pushed into lessons against their will by parents who have odd reasons.  Institutions forcing grade systems and competitiveness to "motivate" and in general interfere with a good teacher wanting to do his job.  Being forced to go toward false goals to please examiners or judges, or to up the student one notch each year in "grade levels".   Demanding parents demanding the wrong thing, judgmental peers, students of all ages being damaged by previous teachers or authority figures, or overwhelmed with schoolwork.  These are part of a teacher's realities.

Finally back to the bland beginning.  If a teacher does these things, then to me this is an idealism.  I am leery about a certain kind of "idealism" because I've seen a kind that creates a lot of harm.  I've encountered a few evangelical pop psychology types who go after students' personas, where I think that if you want to change attitude, make sure you are giving skills and a lot of that will fix itself.  And then I had one encounter with a science teacher when my child was in high school.  My son was disgusted that this teacher had not bothered reading the text that she was teaching, violated safety rules, had not mastered her subject.  He was afraid of opening his mouth in case something sarcastic came out because it infuriated him.  During a parent-teacher interview she played psychologist, wanting to know how to "draw out" my son who she saw as a troubled youngster unable to make friends (he had plenty!) - I had to restrain myself from saying "Go home.  Study the material you are teaching.  Learn the safety rules posted in your classroom and follow them.  Earn your students' respect by being competent!"

Finally, Yehudi Menuhin said that if you have not harmed a student, then you have already done great teaching.

[m1469]

Thanks to both of you.  I have read entirely your posts and am taking them in.  I'm in a hurry at the moment but wanted to chime in briefly.  I did mention the idea of encouraging "transformational learning" and I still agree with this, but I see your point, Keypeg, in that acquiring skill is a huge part of this.  I know this as a student, and it has always been a balance between the acquisition of skill, the recognition of ability, and a decision that I am capable and deserving of development.  Sometimes it's tough to say whatever it is that comes first, but I can assure that acquiring actual skill, actual tools in order to help me express myself at the instrument were always involved, vs. just me waking up one day and deciding to just "believe in myself" and suddenly, overnight, I can magically become a virtuoso.

I do feel though, that as a teacher, my ultimate goal would be for a student's life to somehow progress and change while in my studio.  If that is not happening, then what are they truly learning?  Skill, yes.  More than skill, too.  But yes, skill.

[hardy_practice]

The teaching role is a somewhat overrated.   The body is superbly adapted to learning, in fact I'd say it's what we're best at.  Teachers are there to prevent stuff rather than initiate. 

[Bob]

 The trouble seem to be that musicians are not educators, therefore they do not teach music along educational lines, nor with the same thoroughness used for other educational subjects.


That line.  They do train people in music education.  I don't quite follow.  More so... Who is being trained in educational method?  The regular classroom teachers?  They're not rocket scientists in nearly every place I've seen.  They're "I just want to work with children" women.  Most of them.  Not all.  But nearly all I've seen are that way.  They're not cutting edge/advancing the field of education.  They're doing the same thing that's been done or doing what they individually think should be done.

And then who?  Professors?  They're educated in their subject area, but don't take educational course or have a degree in education.  Yet they still teach, at the college level. 


Even in my own background I wasn't taught much about how to actually teach -- presentation methods, how student absorb information, etc.  I was taught a lot about political correctness and theories about learning.  Even the theories could be summarized easily in a few hours or even minutes really.



For ideals, what I've seen, is that those are targets.  Some places will never reach them.  The community doesn't support it and won't change.


My own thinking....
Education is sloppy, esp. the more learners involved.  You can set goals, etc. but you can't get everyone 100% up to par 100% of the time.  If you do get 100^ mastery for everyone on one topic, you're going way slower than the group can go and a lot of students will get bored.  You're stuck aiming for the middle with group. With some differentiation, yes, but it's still not getting everything perfect.

If you really want something solid, delivered well, absorbed/understood by the students... It's going to be something you focused on a lot as a teacher to develop that delivery.  And it's going to be something very minute if you're going to measure it well.  I saw a theory book that taught V I voice leading and if you really mastered it, it took pages and pages just to cover one specific event. Fine, you get that event down, but it can't quite apply to other situations.

[m1469]

Yes, all of this applies and I have loads of questioning ideas with relation.  I'm trying to focus myself on channeling an observable, communicable change in what the reality of a private teaching studio is, for example, between just starting out, fresh out of school, vs. years down the road.

Briefly (because today I'm almost only in a hurry!), one of the gigantic questions is about the ideal of setting out in theory a straight path as a teacher, that is the ideal.  And to just be able to lay metaphorical candies along the way for the student to follow and consume and continue on in this perfectly straight line.  But, I'm currently under the impression that this can only ever be a theory, an almost strictly intellectual ideal that somebody can write about and think about, but that in actual reality for both teacher and student, learning is just messy.  However, it still seems pertinent for a teacher to really focus ideals ... but those are going to really need to have some kind of flexibility and they will change or be drawn on in various ways and probably not ever all at once.

Must go.

[p2u_]

I am in the process of redefining several things to myself with regard to teaching, and it dawns on me that perhaps the reality of teaching actually has very little do with ideals.  What do you think?  What practical role do you think a teacher's ideals play in the reality of students' learning?

Depends on who you teach. If I may speak for myself: I almost exclusively work with people that have to either 1) retrain or 2) prepare for exams, competitions, etc. but got stuck or have lost confidence. From my point of view, this is an ideal situation because those people are motivated, grateful, ready, especially if you can show them tricks of the trade that work right away to free up their blocked resources. In such an environment, there is plenty of room for idealism to and fro and good opportunity for learning for both student and teacher. I'm afraid the materials you quoted suffer too much from overgeneralisations.

Paul

[m1469]

Depends on who you teach. If I may speak for myself: I almost exclusively work with people that have to either 1) retrain or 2) prepare for exams, competitions, etc. but got stuck or have lost confidence. From my point of view, this is an ideal situation because those people are motivated, grateful, ready, especially if you can show them tricks of the trade that work right away to free up their blocked resources. In such an environment, there is plenty of room for idealism to and fro and good opportunity for learning for both student and teacher. I'm afraid the materials you quoted suffer too much from overgeneralisations.

Paul

Thanks.


1.  Did you start there?
2.  If not, how did you get there?
3.  Do you teach privately?
4.  Does it pay your mortgage?
5.  Can you see a marked change in your concept of ideal teaching and ideal student over the course of your career, or has it just remained exactly the same the entire time?

You don't have to answer those, but these are the sorts of questions I'm really trying to clarify to myself.  I think I'm overhauling.

[keypeg]

In such an environment, there is plenty of room for idealism to and fro and good opportunity for learning for both student and teacher. I

What kind of idealism?

[hardy_practice]

I'm a few years away from retiring from the state sector.  I've grown to realize the vast majority of my students and colleagues are institutionalized.  That is, they come to see me expecting me to do something.  Instead of guiding ships on their journey I'm tugging them into port!  

[ajspiano]

What kind of idealism?

Not sure if I'm reading p2u's post correctly, but I think he may referring to the type or kind of lessons that happen with the right student/teacher combination.

The one where the student is effectively an active and competent self learner, and the teacher has no need to discuss the fundamental basics (note reading etc) which means that their is no sense of "dragging" in the lesson.. its high paced and the teacher doesn't act as an instructor, but rather as a mentor that just opens up the student to new ways of thinking..  you allow the student to learn rather than teach them...   in these lessons there are lots of "click" moments, where students RAPIDLY improve, seemingly with no work at all, because their was nothing wrong with their raw technique/ability - they just have a mental block, or need to look at something a different way...  or be reminded to look at something a different way.

Consequently, the lesson becomes as much a two way discussion as it is a lesson.. the teacher gains knowledge thanks to observing how the student receives and comprehends certain explainations and the teacher is able to clarify and improve on complex ideas in real time, and its really fun...

This is kind of how I think all teaching should work.. but its harder to make it happen with a less experienced student..  they must have the "experimental spark" and be consciously extrapolating on what you say. With younger students and beginners I find I often have to be responsible for triggering that, by asking the right questions..   rather than it just happening spontaneously and turning it into a conversation about music/piano as opposed to the teacher directing the students thoughts.

EDIT:
The kind of students p2u mentions pretty much always fit the bill for this situation to occur very easily, as he also said. They have learnt basics and have strong desire. Its at a contrast to say, someone who comes as a total beginner who can't read music and wants help with that..  not that I mind teaching someone how to read..  but when its an adult I immediately question their desire and start thinking about how I can fuel their desire because they could've googled note reading and learnt it for free.. (or at least tried to)

[keypeg]

Ok, you get a student with that spark.  The student has never encountered a note of music, has never touched the instrument - well, with piano at least a sound can be produced without too much effort - he can't read since everything is new to him.  Do you just go off on "ideas", bouncing them back and forth?  What's the start in the very beginning?    Your ideal student also needs an ideal teacher.

"Ideal" to me is not about having an optimum situation, but about things you strive toward.  That's why I didn't understand it that way.

[keypeg]

EDIT:
The kind of students p2u mentions pretty much always fit the bill for this situation to occur very easily, as he also said. They have learnt basics and have strong desire.

That actually is my point.  Giving the student the basics is probably THE most important and hardest thing to do.  It is seen as unimportant, teachers who do it are not seen in the same light as the ones doing "advanced" things, yet the most profound and important things happen right there.

...  not that I mind teaching someone how to read..  but when its an adult I immediately question their desire and start thinking about how I can fuel their desire because they could've googled note reading and learnt it for free.. (or at least tried to)

If by "reading" you mean learning the names of the notes on the staff by memorizing them in some way, yes that can be done on one's own.  But reading music means to have a connection between the notes in the score and the piano keys plus their sound, and an association of the names which tie to both of these things.  It is not an intellectual thing but something that combines the senses and is used in real time.  There are ways of imparting these skills, which are not usually found on Google. 

When it comes to adults, the fact that we can think abstractly and conceptualize can turn into a trap as well as an asset.  The "knowledge" has to come into the body and the senses by direct experience, otherwise it stays on the surface and risks getting interpreted intellectually.  I insist that the most important things are those taught in the very beginning, and it includes adults.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm a few years away from retiring from the state sector.  I've grown to realize the vast majority of my students and colleagues are institutionalized.  That is, they come to see me expecting me to do something.  Instead of guiding ships on their journey I'm tugging them into port!  

It's the teacher's responsibility to create the possibility of self-learning and independent thought. Nobody comes in needing just a small pointer, other than geniuses. The teacher must be ACTIVE in how they school a person towards independence. If the teacher simply gets irked at the fact a student is not automatically figuring everything out for themself, they are not doing their job properly- and shame on them for blaming the student for looking to them for more. Also, if the teacher has to resort to tugging for a while, it's HIS job to find a way to sort out the learning that will make it only a temporary measure.

A teacher can't start by sitting there and asking what the student taught themself this week. A teacher has to set the work in a way that naturally leads to independence. Early on, that requires you to do something for them in an exceedingly active way. The key is that what you do is skillfully organised to inspire thinking. Some students get this easily, some don't. It's the teacher's job to keep looking at what he can actively do to inspire- not to complain that they don't get it if he merely points a vague finger. If a teacher expects the student to come to them with the necessary styles of thought already ingrained in them, the teacher is incompetent and possibly not a great deal better with the talented students than the average ones. Anyone can sit back and watch a talented student coast along. It takes a lot more to see a talented student reach their actual potential by continuing to challenge them.

[ajspiano]

I didnt mean to make light of the complexities of reading music.. 

I also quite enjoy teaching that stuff.. as much as the "advanced" stuff..  But I have a desire to teach, not just a desire to play/discuss music. I can see how some teachers shouldn't be involved with beginners because they don't necessarily approach things at the right pace..  a beginner teacher has to impart those basic skills and foster the ability to learn, which I tend to think is a bit harder than working with more advanced or older students where you can get lazy and get away with just "managing" their progress, as they do a lot of work/discovery on their own.

Some students can make a teacher look a lot better than they actually are.. 

Personally I currently have a beginner (2-3 months in) that is playing grade 5-6 repertoire..  and while I've helped its much more do to with the fact that he listens, practices, and has a musical background on another instrument - more than that I'm particularly good at helping him.

[nyiregyhazi]

That actually is my point.  Giving the student the basics is probably THE most important and hardest thing to do.  It is seen as unimportant, teachers who do it are not seen in the same light as the ones doing "advanced" things, yet the most profound and important things happen right there.If by "reading" you mean learning the names of the notes on the staff by memorizing them in some way, yes that can be done on one's own.  But reading music means to have a connection between the notes in the score and the piano keys plus their sound, and an association of the names which tie to both of these things.  It is not an intellectual thing but something that combines the senses and is used in real time.  There are ways of imparting these skills, which are not usually found on Google.  

True- but if a student has not already put some effort in, they will have a hard time learning how to cross-reference things for the deeper understanding. My personal tactic of asking students to learn only the spaces- but absolutely 100%- and then also thinking relatively is something that will always work as a foundation. However, it boils down to whether the student goes and learns them truly well or not. A student who has previously tried but struggled with advanced reading is much more likely to take the idea and run with it than one who always just thought reading music would probably be a bit hard to do. You can't make associations without first memorising the basic information. When it comes to adults, they do need the mindset to learn the basics truly properly once and for all, or the struggle will never really stop.

[keypeg]

I've learned some different approaches.  Memorizing is not the only way.

[nyiregyhazi]

I've learned some different approaches.  Memorizing is not the only way.

Memorising reference notes is absolutely the only way. The only question is how you develop the memory. I ask students to learn the spaces plus middle C, so any note that is to be derived is never more than one away (until you get to leger lines, where I use a similar system of memorising reference notes).

Yes, you can calculate other notes from any one note, but if you only know one note, this is too cumbersome to be anything but utterly useless at higher speeds. This simply does not work unless it causes memory to develop. Even with the spaces system, the whole idea is that they use some derivations from what they have memorised but ultimately LEARN the lines too- not that they forever count up or down a note from their references. There are different approaches to inspiring memorisation of notes, but there is not a single possible method that does not begin with memorisation of at least one reference note (preferably all four spaces) which then expands into memory of others. Personally, I consider the four spaces to be the smallest amount of information that you can get by on having committed to memory. Anything less than that and you're just giving yourself counting practise- unless you actually start to memorise extra notes for recognition at first glance. However, anything more and the attempt at memory may tend to become prone to confusion and errors (which is why I never teach students to memorise the lines in a deliberate fashion).

[keypeg]

I have seen another way taught, so it is definitely not the "only way".  I would hesitate to call anything an only way even for something in which I have expertise for 40 or 50 years, because it is impossible to know everything that has been done by every person on this planet.

You have written about "calculating notes" - no such idea.  Memorizing intellectually is not the only way.  The memory or the association can be formed in different ways.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have seen another way taught, so it is definitely not the "only way".  I would hesitate to call anything an only way even for something in which I have expertise for 40 or 50 years, because it is impossible to know everything that has been done by every person on this planet.

You have written about "calculating notes" - no such idea.  Memorizing intellectually is not the only way.  The memory or the association can be formed in different ways.

Whether you call it a memory or an association, it is a memory. Precisely what is supposed to account for the ability to correctly identify a note while reading through an unfamiliar piece, if the meaning of that symbol is neither memorised, nor calculated from a reference note that is? It's like suggesting that you might do correct mathematics without having memorised what quantity each numerical symbol refers to.

It's all very well using indirect approaches, but they are not different from memory. They are simply indirect triggers of memory- or they will not work. Precisely how can you explain the possibility of reading without having memorised what the symbols actually refer to?

"Different" approaches typically involve taking a longer route to creating memories that frequently involve a lot of extraneous processes. Some people need less direct approaches than simply memorising a few reference notes straight up, but it is not a different thing to memory. It's a different method of instilling memory.

[keypeg]

Again, there are different ways of doing it.  I don't know what you mean anymore than you know what I mean.  I am imagining that by "memorize" you mean intellectually trying to remember the names of spaces by studying the treble and bass clefs, then learning to "read" music from there, then associating those names with the keys on the piano which you have also had to memorize as names.  That is the first approach I used.  There are other ways which are more effective.

[nyiregyhazi]

Again, there are different ways of doing it.  I don't know what you mean anymore than you know what I mean.  I am imagining that by "memorize" you mean intellectually trying to remember the names of spaces by studying the treble and bass clefs, then learning to "read" music from there, then associating those names with the keys on the piano which you have also had to memorize as names.  That is the first approach I used.  There are other ways which are more effective.

By memorising I mean committing to memory. I didn't say anything about the specific method- rather I pointed out that this memory must be acquired for success to ensue. There are many different approaches to instilling that memory. What matters is that they do so. Speaking of the need to "memorise basic information" does not rule out associating the symbols to the keys on the piano or to pitches or anything else and I'm not quite clear why that would be in any way implied by the use of the phrase. Since when is learning what keys a notated symbol/the sound of the pitch it refers to anything other than memorising basic information? And what successful approach to sightreading involves not knowing these things? I think you should detail it, if there's supposedly something that sidesteps these issues- where you have no need to associate a written note to the corresponding piano key, in order to be able to understand how to read that note.

[keypeg]

In other words, as usual we're talking past each other.

[nyiregyhazi]

In other words, as usual we're talking past each other.

What are you talking about then? I'm sincerely interested to know- but instead of explaining what you are talking about you are just insisting that there is an alternative. What alternative? This isn't a matter of me casually excluding things I've never heard of. It's about the objective impossibility of reading something correctly without recourse to correctly memorised information (whether it's based on instant recall or relative comparisons to other memorised symbols for a pitch). Whatever subjective viewpoint you might personally focus on, no method can objectively work unless it creates reliable memories that associate an notated pitch to the piano key. EVERYTHING in sight-reading is an off-shoot that hinges upon whether memories were successfully created in the foundations. If anything seems different, that is purely an illusion (where the nature of the method masks the simple fact that the brain is simply memorising associations)- not an objective reality.

While it's inevitable that anything you could mention that works will indeed be a method that creates memories, I am sincerely intrigued by what you are actually alluding to and in what way you feel it is "different" to memorisation (rather than a method where success hinges directly on whether memories are created or not- the same as with every other method).

[p2u_]

1.  Did you start there?

No.

2.  If not, how did you get there?

A friend of a friend, a conservatory student, got in hospital after a suicide attempt. She had had a brain tumor and the doctors "touched" something they shouldn't have while removing the tumor. The result: all hope for a career in the jazz world seemed to have been shattered; nobody from the standard academic environment she had been in could help her. Although I had no idea where this would end, I took the challenge and proposed her to work with her. Ultimately, she got her diploma with suma cum lauda. The rest was mouth-to-mouth advertisment...

3.  Do you teach privately?

Yes, exclusively.

4.  Does it pay your mortgage?

If I were more business-like, I'd say I could have been very rich by now, yes.

5.  Can you see a marked change in your concept of ideal teaching and ideal student over the course of your career, or has it just remained exactly the same the entire time?

Yes. In the beginning, I thought the reason for not being able to play in certain students was their inability to move correctly. Then I got through a period of thinking that the reason was their absence of a clear sound image. Now, I'm convinced one should dig tunnels from both sides, sometimes even going against the rules of standard educational principles.

Paul

[p2u_]

What kind of idealism?

Mostly, opening doors when all hope seems to have been gone. See the story about how I started my project in my reply to m1469. I now have the name of "being able to teach even a monkey" but that is not a reflection of who I am or what I do. I just love music, I just love the instrument, and I just love people. It may be clear, that you can not do what I do within the standard educational environment. And yes, you are right: teaching someone from the very start is far more difficult and is a far more responsible task. I admire people who can do that.

Paul

[keypeg]

Now, I'm convinced one should dig tunnels from both sides, sometimes even going against the rules of standard educational principles.

This is extremely wise and very true.

[p2u_]

Ok, you get a student with that spark.  The student has never encountered a note of music, has never touched the instrument - well, with piano at least a sound can be produced without too much effort - he can't read since everything is new to him.  Do you just go off on "ideas", bouncing them back and forth?  What's the start in the very beginning?    Your ideal student also needs an ideal teacher.

I must say that I have had those too. Frank was 16 when we first met and he started from scratch. His love was Jazz. He didn't want to go through music school and the way some private Jazz teachers proposed to teach him didn't attract him at all. I'm nobody in Jazz and I have no idea how to teach it professionally from step 1, but Frank kind of showed me how to teach him. This is probably hard to believe, but if you are humble enough as a teacher, this approach can actually work. I just taught him how to take dust off the keys with his fingertips, nothing more. In one year and a half, he got into Utrecht conservatory, auditioning with Bert van den Brink, a blind pianist/teacher who was very impressed with what we had achieved in such a short time. It was he who convinced Frank that he should learn to read notes and it was he (a blind teacher!?!) who taught him the principles of good reading. Talk about idealism...

Paul

[danhuyle]

The agenda for all piano teachers is to have your students play at recording standard, e.g. Playing Chopin at Vladimir Ashkenazy level. That's the outcome they all want.

I've learned from piano from pianists with high credentials (masters degrees, licentiate diplomas etc.) and I can rightfully say that despite these credentials, it really is up to YOU to do the work.

I had one of the following beliefs
"If the teacher hasn't played it, then how can I?"
"My teacher has played it for years and still can't play it "the right way", so therefore I can't play it"
"My teacher's piano playing level is low standard, and so my piano skills will end of like them"

If you're a committed piano student, then you wouldn't have any of the above the beliefs. It's about catering your student and it's not about the teacher. A teacher is someone who just steers the student in the right direction.

If your criteria is one of the above beliefs, then go get mentoring from an X Factor judge. They've got high credentials and everything a person looks for in a teacher, and they'll "GUARANTEE" that you will get to where you want to be.

Is your student surpassing you (the teacher)? Congratulations, you've taught them well.