What are your flaws as a teacher?

[virtuoso80]

As with many things, most piano teacher think they're above average, although obviously that can't be the case. I've taken great pains to be objective about myself as a teacher, and be brutally honest about my shortcomings. As with learning piano, how can you improve if you don't know what need improvement. Thus, I present my flaws as a teacher, and I'd love to see others join in and present theirs as well:

I get bored with easy music - Perhaps this is not unusual, but after the 100th time teaching a 6-year-old how to do a C major scale, and play 'Jingle Bells', it started to get a bit old. Not only does this make me less than enthusiastic about teaching my most common student demographic, but it makes me push my more advanced students into music they may not be ready for, because I desire so much to finally get the chance to actually talk about the things that interest and excite me. In my experience that it not uncommon with teachers, and it's not good for the student. It's tough, because I'm someone who gets bored very easily, and requires complex and sophisticated things to keep me interested. Would some of my students be better off with a 'dumber' teacher? Possibly.

I let my empathy slip - Again, not uncommon. It's so easy to get into the authoritative role, and forget how you felt when you were on the other side of the equation. My students generally seem to say I'm a 'nice' teacher, but I've had times where I know I pushed a little too far, and forced a naturally gifted but undisciplined student to try and fit into the piano mold in a way that probably killed some of the joy for them. How silly...I WAS that student once upon a time! How could I forget that?

I'm too self-absorbed - This is the biggest flaw for me. I didn't get into piano to teach other people to succeed, I got into it for myself to succeed. I'm not a blatant narcissist, and obviously I care enough to think about it and post things like this on piano forums  , but I've got an internal competitive drive to win/succeed/be the best at all things, and the honest truth is that if one of my students got to the top of the heap, and I didn't, the jealousy of that would make my head explode. I don't dislike helping people, I often even enjoy it, but at the end of the day I sure as heck don't want to see them do better than me! Unless that changed, and I don't think it's going to, I must admit I could probably never be as good a teacher as other people who can put their heart and soul into seeing others succeed.

Can any of you relate to these, or do you have your own flaws?

[ajspiano]

My biggest flaw is expanding upon an idea before the student is ready, that is that I will explain/demo a certain idea and the student will produce the result easily enough and I too quickly push them to do something that is similar but a bit harder..

I often have to catch myself and think, "no leave that for next time" .. its making sure that the lessons teaches a specific thing rather than vomits information at someone who isn't ready.

The trouble is in being too excited about the music and the students successes. I tend to want to get on a roll and keep improving rather than improve, and allow time for that to sink in a bit better.

......

Better lesson planning helps I think, having a clear idea about what you're intending to do with someone at the upcoming lesson. But also, having the patience to accept that sometimes you shoot for more in a lesson than was possible and you just have to take things at the students pace. Especially with beginners, where you really need to do that "supervised practice" kind of lesson...  don't move on until they are ready, and that needs to be the case until you can trust that they know how to go about certain aspects of practice and can follow through with it on their own.

[lostinidlewonder]

As with many things, most piano teacher think they're above average, although obviously that can't be the case.

I can't say I have met most teachers and asked them what they think of their ability. I think confidence in your ability to teach is important and that has nothing to do with comparing yourself with other teachers however it can be mistaken for a sense of superiority.

I get bored with easy music - Perhaps this is not unusual, but after the 100th time teaching a 6-year-old how to do a C major scale, and play 'Jingle Bells', it started to get a bit old.

You have to see the challenge is not the piece itself but improving the way in which the student learns to process the information. There is a huge amount of complicated and detailed issues that stumps a beginner and as a teacher it is your duty to pick them out and address them. We might use simple material but the problems within the beginners mind are as difficult as a master student.

Not only does this make me less than enthusiastic about teaching my most common student demographic, but it makes me push my more advanced students into music they may not be ready for, because I desire so much to finally get the chance to actually talk about the things that interest and excite me.

Teachers should not be repertoire motivated but rather be more interested in a students personal journey despite the level. This is not to say that some teachers prefer to specialize, that is completely ok, but most teachers deal with at least some beginners since they are the most difficult students to teach.

It's tough, because I'm someone who gets bored very easily, and requires complex and sophisticated things to keep me interested. Would some of my students be better off with a 'dumber' teacher? Possibly.

Maybe it would benefit you to see the music on the level of your students rather than at your own level then you may see how complicated simple issues are for a beginner. When you guide your students you need to bring yourself to their level so it is easier to guide them. If you speak constantly at a high level and teach without regarding how the student absorbs information you may infact teach ineffectively for that student. When I teach a child often I ask them if they know particular words that I use so that I don't use terminology that just goes over their head.

.... I know I pushed a little too far, and forced a naturally gifted but undisciplined student to try and fit into the piano mold in a way that probably killed some of the joy for them.

I believe there is nothing wrong to let all students know that learning the piano or anything in life requires hard work. Too many are lazy and just erratically practice the piano every week. I do not commend that type of practice and I do notice it and always offer feedback every lesson as to how much practice I feel they have done in the week. If that kills the joy then they should leave, I don't want students to feel that it is right to study with me and do no work on their own.

I'm too self-absorbed - This is the biggest flaw for me. I didn't get into piano to teach other people to succeed, I got into it for myself to succeed.

There is nothing wrong with this however you NEED to be in teaching to help other succeed and that should interest you a great deal, if not then you shouldn't be a teacher.

I've got an internal competitive drive to win/succeed/be the best at all things, and the honest truth is that if one of my students got to the top of the heap, and I didn't, the jealousy of that would make my head explode.

That is just a little odd for me lol.

I don't dislike helping people, I often even enjoy it, but at the end of the day I sure as heck don't want to see them do better than me!

When I started teaching I had students who could sight read better than me, it didn't discourage me from teaching them one bit because I could help them in other areas. It made me work hard on my reading. So, being challenged by your students is good as well, but don't see it as a negative, see it as an area you may need improving upon.

Can any of you relate to these, or do you have your own flaws?

I think I am too lenient and kind to students. I find it difficult to assert authority and tell a student to do something. I don't like controlling distracted little 5 year old students and tell them to sit properly, listen to the teacher, stop playing around etc. I think I am also too encouraging which can be a flaw. I have had students say they want to take music as a career and in the back of my head I am like "Oh NO!" but I encourage them with that decision and try to make them see the hard work. I use to have teachers that instilled fear in me and I would work hard during the week so I wouldn't get crushed by their wrath! I don't give off that vibe which I think might be helpful, but I try to give the opposite vibe, to impress the teacher and make him more happy. It doesn't work all the time, so I have to bribe little students with lollies. I think being a candy dealer is a flaw too, I'm ruining their teeth! lo0ol

[j_menz]

I get bored with easy music.... I'm someone who gets bored very easily, and requires complex and sophisticated things to keep me interested. Would some of my students be better off with a 'dumber' teacher? Possibly.

"To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." - William Blake

Perhaps they need a "smarter" one.  Any idiot can be dazzled by the complex and sophisticated. It takes greater wisdom to find the depths of the simple.

On topic, I am not a teacher, so have no relevant flaws. Among my irrelevant ones is laziness, so that will be the end of that explication.

[virtuoso80]

"To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." - William Blake

Perhaps they need a "smarter" one.  Any idiot can be dazzled by the complex and sophisticated. It takes greater wisdom to find the depths of the simple.

It's a nice sentiment, but don't apply it more broadly than it fits. We don't have 180IQ geniuses packing groceries in the supermarket, and mentally retarded people doing theoretical physics. We also don't have our most advanced PhDs fascinated with teaching kindergarteners. It's hardly unknown that smart students that aren't being challenged by their simple schoolwork have trouble paying attention, yes? Banality and simplicity have long been the enemy of those with big brains. When we say 'depths of the simple', I think that more applies to the idea of, say, someone staring at the leaves blowing on trees, and being fascinated by their motion, and seeing the depths of that. That's a bit different from what I expressed.

[ajspiano]

while the music you teach to a beginner may be quite simple - the processes and ideas relating to how you teach it don't have to be.

it takes a lot of complex thought to write your own progressive pieces for beginners for example (assuming your going to write good ones).. and you can analyse the sucessess or failings of your method without discussing that directly with the student.

[keypeg]

It's a nice sentiment, but don't apply it more broadly than it fits. We don't have 180IQ geniuses packing groceries in the supermarket, and mentally retarded people doing theoretical physics. We also don't have our most advanced PhDs fascinated with teaching kindergarteners. It's hardly unknown that smart students that aren't being challenged by their simple schoolwork have trouble paying attention, yes? Banality and simplicity have long been the enemy of those with big brains. When we say 'depths of the simple', I think that more applies to the idea of, say, someone staring at the leaves blowing on trees, and being fascinated by their motion, and seeing the depths of that. That's a bit different from what I expressed.

I will go with j_menz.  In fact, what he wrote is not a nice sentiment, but a principal in music.  It also highlights a problem in attitudes toward music.  How many seek to bedazzle through what is loud, fast and complicated?  You can hide a lot in a flurry of notes.  For a seemingly simple piece to be played well, this requires the touch of a master.  And that master has had the humility to look deeply into simple things such as touch, note duration, timing, looking into the detail of the notes and their meaning - each one - studying the music with knowledge so as to bring out what is in the music.

The attitude toward kindergarten in fact highlights a problem with education.  Perhaps not kindergarten, but at least grade 1 is where the foundation of advanced things lie.  Take for example additional and subtraction.  Any fool can get kids to memorize "number facts" and drill them with flash cards.  But to get at the concept, and to guide young minds toward good thinking and learning strategies when they are first forming them, is nothing trivial.  Because this is seen in the way that you describe, we get kids in grades 8, 9, and 10 having trouble with algebra, which codifies those same concepts.

The same is true for music.  Nobody is "merely" a teacher of beginners.  And those teachers of advanced stuff who get a student who can't make it, might want to look at where it might have gone wrong in the beginning.  At which point it's a lot harder to fix.

Do 180 IQ geniuses back groceries?  You bet they do.  And drive taxis.  And deliver flyers door to door when times are tough.  Perhaps I'm doing you a disservice and you have actually experienced poverty and its limitations.  Past public school, education costs money.  And the quality of education you get in those public schools will also depend on where you live, which is also a factor of money.

In addition to this there is something that an educational psychology professor of mine called "social intelligence".  To get ahead you have to know how society works, and how to work with it.  Or get lucky.

[virtuoso80]

I will go with j_menz.  In fact, what he wrote is not a nice sentiment, but a principal in music.  It also highlights a problem in attitudes toward music.  How many seek to bedazzle through what is loud, fast and complicated?  You can hide a lot in a flurry of notes.  For a seemingly simple piece to be played well, this requires the touch of a master.  And that master has had the humility to look deeply into simple things such as touch, note duration, timing, looking into the detail of the notes and their meaning - each one - studying the music with knowledge so as to bring out what is in the music.

I remember reading college guides in high school, and students at Eastman School of Music interviewed suggested it was sometimes difficult to learn from Professors who were so brilliant and advanced. "We could probably learn more from people who know less," was one quote.

There was a professor in my program who was some kind of inhuman fountain of knowledge, who was loved and respected by the majors. When it came time in the rotation for him to teach music 101 to the non-majors, he had some issues. It's as if his brain simply couldn't fathom such a lack of ability and intuition. My fellow students and I would talk about it in similar terms as I presented: "Could you imagine? The poor guy. What a terrible idea to waste him on that classroom."

As someone who was always good in math, I actually find math harder to teach than, say, social studies or English. I mean, -12 + -14 = -26...isn't that totally obvious? It always was to me. Similarly, I recently got all excited about the opportunity to turn my niece's math homework into a demonstration of how compounding interest at decreasing intervals converges on e(and how wondrous and beautiful the properties of e are in general), but I just got incomprehension and boredom back. On the other side of things, I was always mediocre with spelling and grammar, so when I help my niece with that, I'm easier to relate to, and more easily occupied with the task at hand, instead of wanting to go off on inspired tangents.

Those are just a few examples of what I thought was a pretty uncontroversial premise - that sometimes a less advanced teacher can be better and more contented to teach basic stuff.

[j_menz]

As someone who was always good in math, I actually find math harder to teach than, say, social studies or English. I mean, -12 + -14 = -26...isn't that totally obvious? It always was to me. Similarly, I recently got all excited about the opportunity to turn my niece's math homework into a demonstration of how compounding interest at decreasing intervals converges on e(and how wondrous and beautiful the properties of e are in general), but I just got incomprehension and boredom back. On the other side of things, I was always mediocre with spelling and grammar, so when I help my niece with that, I'm easier to relate to, and more easily occupied with the task at hand, instead of wanting to go off on inspired tangents.

Are you looking to teach, or are you looking to impress your students with your genius? It sounds to me very much like the latter. It also sounds to me like you overestimate that genius.

[virtuoso80]

Are you looking to teach, or are you looking to impress your students with your genius? It sounds to me very much like the latter. It also sounds to me like you overestimate that genius.

I don't think it's impressing so much as sharing. I get excited by the prospect of being able to share something I find fascinating with another human being. It's unfortunately rare to find other people who enjoy these same things, so you get excited by the chance to share. As a classical music buff, you must be able to relate to that. It's like being excited about a new recording you just got, and putting it on for other people to hear - "You have to hear this, it's amazing!" ...and then no one 'gets' it.

[keypeg]

In regards to the basics: Someone teaching basic things must have a true mastery of his subject or discipline.  Advanced knowledge can be acquired.  But the core of the thing is another matter altogether.  For the same reason I'm not comfortable with the idea that a teacher who has just finished his studies and is still wobbly should be teaching beginners as a logical choice.  Someone who has mastered piano and has some years of teaching behind his belt will know (for example) what basic skills support advanced work, and how it all builds up.  So when he teaches his beginners, he already has a knowledgeable eye toward the future.

-12 + -14 = -26, or rather (-12) + (-14) = (-26)
In fact, that is one of the primary things that I had to reteach in remediation to students who were in trouble.  It is taught badly.  Where I am, it's supposed to be done with red and blue counting blocks and the kids watch the blocks turn blue or red.  If you find it confusing, you're not alone.  And having this method imposed stops teachers from thinking.

These concepts (and the ones behind algebra) start in grade 1.  a + b = c, c-a = b.  2 red marbles put together with 3 blue marbles give me 5 marbles (c).  If I take one portion away from that whole (c) then I am left with the other portion.  Kids are supposed to experience this - or relate what they do to experience.  Instead, they write out number facts, memorize flash cards, and ace tests.    Go to the grocery store.  I have $10.  If I buy a pack of oranges costing $3, how much money do I have left?

A negative number can represent money owed.  I borrowed $12 and then I borrowed $14, how much money have I borrowed which I now owe.  If I earn $30 in allowance, how much money do I really have ($30) + ($-26) = ($4).  If you talk to kids who are having problems with math, you'll find that they are trading things like games for example.  They're actually calculating these kinds of things in their heads.

By the way, how would you explain multiplying.  -x X -y = +xy.  -x X +y = -xy.  But why?  What does this actually mean?  I've played games like "I'm not not not not not happy.  Am I happy?"  But what does this actually represent?

[dima_76557]

By the way, how would you explain multiplying.  -x X -y = +xy.  -x X +y = -xy.  But why?  What does this actually mean?  I've played games like "I'm not not not not not happy.  Am I happy?"  But what does this actually represent?

I am very bad at mathematics, but I like the explanation here with the help of directions of a baby's movement on a number line: https://www.mathsisfun.com/multiplying-negatives.html
(under the heading "direction")

[keypeg]

Hm.  I borrowed $4 from someone three times.   3 X (-4) = -12
Plus the rule about unlike signs, which, however, is just a rule.

Um - I borrow $4 from someone three times, but he negates that I owe him anything (forgives it) which makes it the opposite.  (-3) --- forgiven borrowing is opposite of owing X (-4) --- owed money = +12 (I have actually gained those $12 because I don't owe them to anyone).

(Waiting for our mathematician to weigh in.)   

I love the baby and the number line.

[virtuoso80]

In regards to the basics: Someone teaching basic things must have a true mastery of his subject or discipline.  Advanced knowledge can be acquired.  But the core of the thing is another matter altogether.  For the same reason I'm not comfortable with the idea that a teacher who has just finished his studies and is still wobbly should be teaching beginners as a logical choice.  Someone who has mastered piano and has some years of teaching behind his belt will know (for example) what basic skills support advanced work, and how it all builds up.  So when he teaches his beginners, he already has a knowledgeable eye toward the future.

-12 + -14 = -26, or rather (-12) + (-14) = (-26)
In fact, that is one of the primary things that I had to reteach in remediation to students who were in trouble.  It is taught badly.  Where I am, it's supposed to be done with red and blue counting blocks and the kids watch the blocks turn blue or red.  If you find it confusing, you're not alone.  And having this method imposed stops teachers from thinking.

These concepts (and the ones behind algebra) start in grade 1.  a + b = c, c-a = b.  2 red marbles put together with 3 blue marbles give me 5 marbles (c).  If I take one portion away from that whole (c) then I am left with the other portion.  Kids are supposed to experience this - or relate what they do to experience.  Instead, they write out number facts, memorize flash cards, and ace tests.    Go to the grocery store.  I have $10.  If I buy a pack of oranges costing $3, how much money do I have left?

A negative number can represent money owed.  I borrowed $12 and then I borrowed $14, how much money have I borrowed which I now owe.  If I earn $30 in allowance, how much money do I really have ($30) + ($-26) = ($4).  If you talk to kids who are having problems with math, you'll find that they are trading things like games for example.  They're actually calculating these kinds of things in their heads.

By the way, how would you explain multiplying.  -x X -y = +xy.  -x X +y = -xy.  But why?  What does this actually mean?  I've played games like "I'm not not not not not happy.  Am I happy?"  But what does this actually represent?

I recommend anyone interested in the teaching of math read https://www.maa.org/devlin/lockhartslament.pdf. It's a wonderfully eye-opening look at the flaws in our system. It also starts out using music as a parallel for math teaching, so it keeps us somewhat on topic.  

...and on that note, it made me second guess some of the more technical, disciplinary elements of classical music education. Do we sometimes destroy the intuitive beauty of the art, just like math teachers?

[m1469]

I don't think it's impressing so much as sharing. I get excited by the prospect of being able to share something I find fascinating with another human being. It's unfortunately rare to find other people who enjoy these same things, so you get excited by the chance to share. As a classical music buff, you must be able to relate to that. It's like being excited about a new recording you just got, and putting it on for other people to hear - "You have to hear this, it's amazing!" ...and then no one 'gets' it.

There are a couple of tiny tidbits of information two of my past teachers have shared with me from years ago, that I've carried around for years now.  The information has kind of been rolling around with various piano and music subjects I ponder, but suddenly just today I have found them even more useful in conjunction with some concepts I've been mapping out for sometime now.  I don't know if my teachers at that time knew the map work required for me to plug those bits of information into something more meaningful to me, and I don't know if those tidbits serve the same purpose for them as they do for me.  But, they are actually very helpful, nonetheless, and I was most likely not as enthusiastic-seeming at the time they shared them as perhaps I "should" have been.  I wasn't ungrateful, and I guess it made quite an impression still since I've carried these tiny bits around for ages, but I needed them in a very different way this much later in life than at the time they were shared with me. 

[j_menz]

I don't think it's impressing so much as sharing. I get excited by the prospect of being able to share something I find fascinating with another human being. It's unfortunately rare to find other people who enjoy these same things, so you get excited by the chance to share. As a classical music buff, you must be able to relate to that. It's like being excited about a new recording you just got, and putting it on for other people to hear - "You have to hear this, it's amazing!" ...and then no one 'gets' it.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective then. You can't expect a 5 or 10 year old to have the same breadth of knowledge and experience as you do, so you can't share where you are directly. What you can do, however, is build in them that knowledge so that they will be able to share that in the future.  That is a kind of sharing as well, and the most important role of a teacher.

[timothy42b]

Most of this thread is about assessing one's self. 

Can we really determine our own strengths and weaknesses accurately?

I contend the answer is no.

If you really want to improve as a teacher, get an experienced teacher to observe and critique you, just as you would do if you wanted to improve as a player.

You can learn some by videoing a lesson and analyzing it carefully, if an observer is unavailable or too threatening, but it's only second best.

I've suggested this before and been met with violent disagreement.  I still think there is merit in the idea.   

[keyofc]

Keypeg -

Do you have a 5 dollar bill I can borrow?

[keypeg]

Keypeg -

Do you have a 5 dollar bill I can borrow?

You wouldn't want it.  Part of it is see-through.   

[keyofc]