Two-Hands C Position: How Long?

[florentin]

How long do you keep your beginner students playing in C Position?
Do you stay there for a while or do you venture to other positions right away?
Thank You.

[dinulip]

Generally speaking, my students are introduced to the two-hand G position 6 to 8 weeks after their first lesson.  The day it happens, most of them look at me somewhat like this >  , or tell me : 'You are kidding, right?!'  -   

[florentin]

Ha ha. That is funny.
I can just imagine it.
Seems a bit early, but I guess it depends on the student.
Do you introduce Middle C Position before moving on the the G Position?
Thanks for the reply.

[dinulip]

Yes.  My students start with the middle C position.

[florentin]

Oh I see.
I was assuming people start with C Position, where the R.H. is on middle C and the L.H. is on the C below.

I have never started with middle C position. It sort of confuses students about the middle C being played by both thumbs.

That is an interesting way to start. What book are you using that starts with middle C position?

[faulty_damper]

I've never taught students to keep C position or other positions.  That's detrimental in the medium term.  Wherever their hands fall is where they fall.  If the hands (arms) need to move, which it most certainly will, the hands move.  They immediately learn that piano is an entire body instrument, not a finger instrument.  Also, many students quickly learn, on their own, how to cross the 3 or 4 over their 5.  Students taught finger positions never figure this out on their own because their thought processes are simple and strict.

[florentin]

There IS some value, at least in my opinion, to thinking "position" during the first few lessons... how else will the student remember where the notes are?

Starting with the note Middle C, for example, is sort of a reference point, is it not? I am not so much referring to position-playing as a physical thing, but more of a visual thing.

I do see the point you are making though.

[dima_76557]

There IS some value, at least in my opinion, to thinking "position" during the first few lessons... how else will the student remember where the notes are?

I think the reference points should be the BLACK keys, not the white ones. At least, that's how blind people learn. So, the "C position" would be the one where the thumb is immediately left from a group of two.
P.S.: As a student, I found it very comfortable psychologically to realize that the system repeats itself. Learning to master the instrument seemed so much more "doable" at once.

[faulty_damper]

There IS some value, at least in my opinion, to thinking "position" during the first few lessons... how else will the student remember where the notes are?

Visually (sharps) and tactile (by feel.)

Starting with the note Middle C, for example, is sort of a reference point, is it not? I am not so much referring to position-playing as a physical thing, but more of a visual thing.

If students know that the sequence of letters is directly related to the sharps, they'd see the pattern either on their own or when it's shown to them.  I've always shown it to them since it saves time and because there is no guarantee that they'd see it on their own in due time.  However, this is not about playing, but about visual guidance/navigation.

For playing, what is important is the sound that each key makes.  When they learn the relationship between the distances of the keys and the sound they make, they can transpose and improvise melodies.  While these are things most teachers don't provide instruction for, they are incredibly important for the musical and keyboard development that beginning students should be able to do because it makes reading music so much easier since they already have a theoretical background that is rooted in experience.

[florentin]

I see what you mean.
Still, most methods begin with the white keys, with no mention of the black keys, until sharps and flats are introduced.

[keypeg]

There IS some value, at least in my opinion, to thinking "position" during the first few lessons... how else will the student remember where the notes are?

For example, D is the note that sits between two black keys.  G and A are housed between the three black keys.  They are there regardless of where the hands are.

[ben_crosland]

 I tend to start with thumbs on C, but an octave apart.

How long do I stay in that position? About one week, with most of my students.

[florentin]

I tend to start with thumbs on C, but an octave apart.

How long do I stay in that position? About one week, with most of my students.

one week? do you do one lesson per week?

[keypeg]

I tend to start with thumbs on C, but an octave apart.

How long do I stay in that position? About one week, with most of my students.

That sounds like my teacher.  Essentially he does not do "positions", period.

Any comment on my observation that D can be seen as the note between two black keys - as opposed to needing a hand position to determine where the note is.  I think it is rather important.

[ben_crosland]

one week? do you do one lesson per week?

Yes. Since I started writing my own introductory material, I have also been trying to address the problem I used to have, which was that for years, all my students seemed to be terrible at sight-reading. My beginner material is written with two goals in mind: 1) to encourage intervallic reading, and 2) to get students playing HT as quickly and confidently as possible.

With very young beginners, I start off with RH only for a while. The first few tunes are all based on C, D, and E. However, as soon as they seem ready, I encourage them to try them with different sets of fingers. When they get to play 5-fingers, HT, I start moving positions after a couple of pieces.

[faulty_damper]

I see what you mean.
Still, most methods begin with the white keys, with no mention of the black keys, until sharps and flats are introduced.

Most methodologies are based on ease for the teacher.  The student considerations are secondary.  The probably reason for this is simply a lack of understanding of how a person learns.  This isn't just a problem in piano pedagogy, but educational pedagogy in general.  The principles that pedagogy is founded upon has very little scientific support.  Most often, the scientific literature directly or indirectly contradicts pedagogical principles.  But, pedagogues do not deal with science so they are almost always ignorant of scientific discoveries that can improve their instruction.

[outin]

Most methodologies are based on ease for the teacher.  The student considerations are secondary.  The probably reason for this is simply a lack of understanding of how a person learns.  This isn't just a problem in piano pedagogy, but educational pedagogy in general.  The principles that pedagogy is founded upon has very little scientific support.  Most often, the scientific literature directly or indirectly contradicts pedagogical principles.  But, pedagogues do not deal with science so they are almost always ignorant of scientific discoveries that can improve their instruction.

Once again you are making assumptions on your (geographically) limited experience on the relationship between pedagody and science. I've observed the US educational system at work a bit so I can understand why someone would feel this way if they don't bother to look any further. But do not assume your experiences can be generalized to the situation globally. Somewhere it's even worse (at least when pedagogy is dictated by religion) but somewhere it's also much better.

[faulty_damper]

Can you provide methodologies that are based on science? 

[outin]

Can you provide methodologies that are based on science? 

I could, but I really don't have time now to search and link articles. Sorry. If you reaserch the field with open eyes you will surely find them yourself. In fact I'd say most pedagogy models are based on some kind of science, just not always of the highest quality...

Just an example: In my country science and pedagogy are very closely linked, since all teachers get their masters degree from the very same faculties that do the research. They are taught by the same people who are doing the research.

If you are interested here are a couple of links:
https://ims.mii.lt/ims/files/EducationmodelFinland_Marianne.pdf


https://www.oaj.fi/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/OAJ_INTERNET/01FI/05TIEDOTTEET/03JULKAISUT/OPEKOULUTUSENG.PDF

Note: These are not a scientific papers, just basic information about how the system is constructed and it's principles. The reality of course is never so rosy. But there's a lot of reaserch going on all the time and the findings are not ignored in the practical side of pedagogy, which was you original claim.

[faulty_damper]

You know, when I was taking a Child Development class, we read about and discussed the Finnish system of education and the responses were all positive.

But since I'm in the US and a product of US education, I had a laugh when I read this on the first link you posted:
"Teachers at all levels of education are well trained and strongly committed to their work"

... because here in the US, it's the exact opposite: teachers at all levels are not well-trained nor are they strongly committed to their work. I even attended a teacher-training program thinking that we would be learning about the psychological research in education but instead, was presented with outdated, unsubstantiated pedagogy.

Since I don't know very much about Finnish education, I don't have enough knowledge to think critically of it.  However, I did read research that the only correlation of a teacher's effectiveness was his/her test scores, not his level of education.  It didn't matter if a teacher had a master's or PhD, there was no statistically significant correlation.  Neither was there a strong correlation between effectiveness and number of years teaching, so teachers who had been teaching for 10-15 years were no more effective than someone teaching a couple of years.  This was American teachers so I don't know if it applies to Finland.

[mjames]

I kind of skipped this whole hand position business and went straight into playing music(ridiculously easy ones, of course).

I personally think it's pointless to practice these drills, just go ahead and give the student a few pieces to play, scales to practice and music theory etc. Eventually he will be able to map out the keyboard on his on way. Then again, I'm not a professional...lol

[keypeg]

I even attended a teacher-training program thinking that we would be learning about the psychological research in education but instead, was presented with outdated, unsubstantiated pedagogy.

There are two problems here.  First, this is very vague, you are referring to pedagogy without describing what it is you are objecting to, and the type of pedagogy you do champion has also not been described.  Secondly there is the obvious problem that we come from many countries, so what is happening specifically in the US doesn't apply, except for there.  Are you, yourself, a trained teacher who is in the system and observing it from the inside?

I can only relate to my teacher training in Canada and subsequent training inside and outside the system.  I'd say that the things I learned did serve me, but I also knew how to use it.  There are no formulas - there is knowledge which you have to know how to apply.    And then in the public school system, teachers also have to work inside a system, and the system itself may hamper both learning and teaching.

But then I am wondering why this is coming up at all, given that the topic here is piano teaching, which is  not usually done within public schools, and given to individuals rather than groups.

[go12_3]

In my experience as a teacher, the middle C position depends upon the age and conceptual factors.  For the younger student, I have them get acquainted with the Middle C position, however, it would be beneficial for them to recognize the  position of C  up and down the keyboard so that as they progress they will learn that the note C can be recognized upon the keyboard.  Children learn quickly and it's best to introduce various hand positions.  Also, it depends upon what Primer books are being used.  Have the student play an octave above and below the middle C position.  Students like variety in their lessons. 

[florentin]

You know, when I was taking a Child Development class, we read about and discussed the Finnish system of education and the responses were all positive.

But since I'm in the US and a product of US education, I had a laugh when I read this on the first link you posted:
"Teachers at all levels of education are well trained and strongly committed to their work"

... because here in the US, it's the exact opposite: teachers at all levels are not well-trained nor are they strongly committed to their work. I even attended a teacher-training program thinking that we would be learning about the psychological research in education but instead, was presented with outdated, unsubstantiated pedagogy.

Since I don't know very much about Finnish education, I don't have enough knowledge to think critically of it.  However, I did read research that the only correlation of a teacher's effectiveness was his/her test scores, not his level of education.  It didn't matter if a teacher had a master's or PhD, there was no statistically significant correlation.  Neither was there a strong correlation between effectiveness and number of years teaching, so teachers who had been teaching for 10-15 years were no more effective than someone teaching a couple of years.  This was American teachers so I don't know if it applies to Finland.

That's a bit harsh... and also a bit superficial.
Do you have documentation to back this up, besides having taken a Child Development class?

Have you taught in the US public school system yet, or are you preparing to? Starting off with such a negative view of the system is not likely to instill a positive attitude in you as an educator. Also, there simply is not enough evidence to prove that what you said is true about all educators, or even most of them.

I have been teaching for twenty years now. I will say that while there are certainly educators that are not well prepared, and you find this in every profession, there is a great majority of educators who are prepared.

Also, saying that there is no difference between a teacher who is starting out and one who has many years of experience, and also saying that there is no difference between a teacher that has pursued higher degrees and one that has stopped at a Bachelor's, is simply, well...  

Can you be more specific about the data you are sharing?
Is your source some book you read in class, a group discussion, or the opinion of your professor?

Don't mean to be harsh here, but you paint with too broad a brush, in my opinion.

cheers

[faulty_damper]

The research of US teachers conclude: they suck.  I'm not being harsh, nor am I exaggerating.  If I were to write a book based ONLY on the psychological literature, it would not be met well with teachers or unions.  They will cite the literature saying that teachers make "a difference".  This is actually found in the literature. However, only some teachers make a difference some of the time so it's incredibly misleading for teachers and unions to imply that ALL teachers make "a difference".  They simply don't.  At worse, they damage natural learning tendencies and make them struggle in future grades and increase their chances of dropping out.

All of these assertions are from the psychological journals that I read in a library or online. E.g. Journal of Education and Treatment of Children, Educational Research Quarterly, Educational Psychologist, et al.  My scientific background is in cognitive and emotional psychology so I've read a lot of related literature as well.

saying that there is no difference between a teacher who is starting out and one who has many years of experience, and also saying that there is no difference between a teacher that has pursued higher degrees and one that has stopped at a Bachelor's, is simply, well...

All of this is direct from the literature: teacher effectiveness has very little correlation with how long a teacher has been teaching, nor is it affected by degree attainment.  A teacher will, however, get other things down such as "classroom management" but that alone doesn't improve student learning outcomes.  I'll repeat again: the only thing that has a strong correlation on effectiveness is the teachers' own test scores on the subject(s).  This makes sense, doesn't it?  If a teacher doesn't know the subject, how does she teach something she doesn't know?  (I can answer this question from my own experiences, but it's embarrassing and shameful.  And the literature also shows that students can tell when the teacher doesn't know the subject very well. In other words, students can't be fooled no matter how much the teacher fakes it.)

From working in various schools, my own experiences corroborate the literature.  I've know teachers who've been teaching more than 20-30 years and the only thing they had over newer teachers was arrogance; they think they've got it down pat when they didn't.  (They assumed that being able to manage a classroom and teaching effectiveness were the same.)  However, that arrogance can also be found in new teachers (5+ years).  Somehow, they believe that the longer they do something, the better they automatically become.  Anyone who plays a musical instrument knows this isn't the case.

Is your source some book you read in class, a group discussion, or the opinion of your professor?

The class discussion was about a different topic entirely that was addressing the Finish school system.  (Don't mean to offend, but it doesn't seem like you read carefully.  BTW, not reading carefully is also in the literature: most people don't read or listen very carefully.)

[keypeg]

Faulty, are you a school teacher?

[faulty_damper]

No.

[florentin]

Faulty, I take no offense in your post.

You are clearly confused, and very misinformed. It is true that there are teachers who are not prepared to do the job, and possibly some who do not make a positive difference.

Can you, though, point me to some credible sources that state that all teachers in the U.S. educational system are ineffective and that experience and higher degrees have no bearing on one's efficiency as an educator?

I can see you don't like school teachers. That's ok. I don't like politicians
That doesn't mean all politicians are bad.
You are not a politician, are you?

Care to share some real links of credible sources of research that back up your statements?
Thanks

[faulty_damper]

I'd have to go back to the library to hunt down those specific articles as I didn't copy them (because the library was closing.)

I am neither confused nor misinformed.  If you are not familiar with the literature, then you simply aren't informed and may be confused by what I have simply reported since it contradicts your beliefs.

And using your analogy, just how many good politicians are there?  That's an oxymoron, obviously.   "Good teacher", however, is so vague that most people don't think that a good teacher transfers knowledge and develops skills, even if s/he isn't well liked.  But that's a different topic since most people consider a well-liked teacher "good" even if she isn't.  I can cite this from the literature.

Also, I only started not to like teachers when I started studying learning and memory and realized that many teacher practices contradict our natural learning tendencies.  Nearly all teacher practices aren't based on validated theory or are misapplied.  There is a huge theory to practice gap amongst educators.  (Spencer, Trina, et al. "Evidence-based Practice: A framework for making effective decisions." Journal of Education and Treatment of Children, May 2012.)  [I was able to copy this citation down.]  To clarify, it is the ignorance and lack of skills of teachers that I detest.

[keypeg]

Faulty, if you are not a school teacher, then I'm not sure what kind of information you are really giving.  What I mean is that I don't think that how teaching is done and based on is to be found in textbooks.  Or said differently, you are reading literature on teaching and then telling people what teaching is about based on that literature but this may not be what it is.  Also everything you have written so far has been extremely vague.  One literally doesn't know what you are talking about.

My teacher training was a few decades ago, and it was in Canada, not the US where you are.  There were practical things.  For example, if you are teaching a unit in math. on multiplication, then you looked at your overall goals, broke it down into specific smaller goals, looked at the nature of the thing you are teaching, planned your sequence of lessons, looked at the types of materials you might use, what kinds of activities, and addressed different learning styles in your presentation so as to include all the children.  Assessment was done not only through formal tests, but also by interacting with the children individually, observing them etc.  Teaching made room for different ability levels within the classroom, and the teacher designed the course of the lesson with that in mind.

These are a few concrete things.  The what and how could fill a few pages, and these are up to the teacher's discretion, based on that knowledge.  I have no idea how or if this fits with the things you are reading.  But above all, if you have not taught, and have not had the training, how can you tell others about what is being done?

[keypeg]

Looking at what has been written.

 At worse, they damage natural learning tendencies and make them struggle in future grades and increase their chances of dropping out.

What is imposed upon teachers can prevent them from teaching properly.  Many of us ended up homeschooling our children for at least a period of time because of it.  The training was there among us teachers, but were we able to apply it?

All of this is direct from the literature: teacher effectiveness has very little correlation with how long a teacher has been teaching, nor is it affected by degree attainment.  A teacher will, however, get other things down such as "classroom management" but that alone doesn't improve student learning outcomes.  I'll repeat again: the only thing that has a strong correlation on effectiveness is the teachers' own test scores on the subject(s).  This makes sense, doesn't it? 

TESTS only prove the ability to pass tests.  So no.  The proper assessment of what a student knows is through interaction, observation, maybe the projects that a student does.  Tests are the poorest way of assessing and when I studied, that was taught right in teacher's college.

 If a teacher doesn't know the subject, how does she teach something she doesn't know?

Agreed.  But also knowing how to teach it.  I taught in the primary grades, which are formative, and thus crucial.  These grades are not respected, and in fact, in teacher's college there was a swagger and sense of superiority among those training for high school teaching.  I taught grade 2, which is when you get more deeply into addition and subtraction, as well as introducing multiplication and division.  There is a point to be made here:

These four things are also concepts.  A school system may be happy to see test results, and parents may love to see homework with neat rows of numbers.  Kids can use flash cards and nowadays apps to "learn their number facts and times tables" and then they can perform like trained monkeys.  That is not teaching; it's inadequate.  The problem shows up in grades 7 - 9; grades I later ended up tutoring in one-on-one remediation privately.  2a & b = 9; find a.   The concepts should already be there from grades 1 - 3, where at a concrete level you are picturing your groups of things being brought together and pulled apart.  You are not just "teaching number facts" (memorized flash cards), but teaching basic concepts.

From working in various schools, my own experiences corroborate the literature.  I've know teachers who've been teaching more than 20-30 years and the only thing they had over newer teachers was arrogance; they think they've got it down pat when they didn't.  (They assumed that being able to manage a classroom and teaching effectiveness were the same.)  However, that arrogance can also be found in new teachers (5+ years).  Somehow, they believe that the longer they do something, the better they automatically become.  Anyone who plays a musical instrument knows this isn't the case.

Don't know what to think of this, because this is too general.  There is nothing concrete; no subject matter and what was done with it.

A concrete observation from over here with kids I've tutored: The educational system got reformed, and a system of teaching negative numbers was imposed involving red and blue blocks.  I ended up tutoring lots of kids who were confused about these blocks.  Tell them "I have savings of $5.00, buy a game from my friend for $7.00, how much do I owe my friend." they can tell you in a heartbeat.  (+5) + (-7) = x; or 5 - 7 = x: they're lost.  Well you see, you take away your red blocks, and then you end up with two blue blocks and two blue blocks are negative two (something like that - it confuses them).   The BIGGER PICTURE however is that the teachers are no longer free to do what we were trained to do, which is what I outlined before - plan your lesson and how you will teach it - this specific teaching device of the red and blue blocks is imposed on them and presented as a skill rather than a device.  That is what I saw happening at our end.

I understand that you guys have extensive testing imposed by the government; this has got to affect teachers' ability to teach.

 BTW, not reading carefully is also in the literature: most people don't read or listen very carefully.)

I had a conversation about this with a private teacher the other day.  One of the problems is that so much material is badly written or badly presented, that one learns to tune out, and reading carefully is essential de-taught.

[florentin]

I'd have to go back to the library to hunt down those specific articles as I didn't copy them (because the library was closing.)

I am neither confused nor misinformed.  If you are not familiar with the literature, then you simply aren't informed and may be confused by what I have simply reported since it contradicts your beliefs.

And using your analogy, just how many good politicians are there?  That's an oxymoron, obviously.   "Good teacher", however, is so vague that most people don't think that a good teacher transfers knowledge and develops skills, even if s/he isn't well liked.  But that's a different topic since most people consider a well-liked teacher "good" even if she isn't.  I can cite this from the literature.

Also, I only started not to like teachers when I started studying learning and memory and realized that many teacher practices contradict our natural learning tendencies.  Nearly all teacher practices aren't based on validated theory or are misapplied.  There is a huge theory to practice gap amongst educators.  (Spencer, Trina, et al. "Evidence-based Practice: A framework for making effective decisions." Journal of Education and Treatment of Children, May 2012.)  [I was able to copy this citation down.]  To clarify, it is the ignorance and lack of skills of teachers that I detest.

Nice try, buddy.
I will wait for that research.
Nice try though.

Your disappointment with teachers in general may be based on some personal experience. However, it cannot justify your position. Not in front of others anyways.

Thanks for the 'reply'

[keypeg]

I Nearly all teacher practices aren't based on validated theory or are misapplied. 

But do you actually know what teachers do?  What types of practices are you talking about, in particular?  Seriously asked.

[faulty_damper]

Faulty, if you are not a school teacher, then I'm not sure what kind of information you are really giving. ...
... But above all, if you have not taught, and have not had the training, how can you tell others about what is being done?

I have taught, over a period of 15 years, many various subjects in schools and other educational organizations.  (I knew this would become a target of attack the moment it was asked.)  I have had the "training" if you mean attending a teacher licensing program so my thoughts on it were based on the kinds of instruction future teachers received, which sounds, btw, just like it is in Canada. The US and Canada are very similar educationally, so the literature applies there, too.

[keypeg]

....  which sounds, btw, just like it is in Canada.

Do you mean the types of things I described in what I studied and applied, or the types of things that were imposed from above such as the blue-red nonsense that I wrote about later?  What specific things as examples did you find faulty.  Because so far you have only alluded to vague broad things.  I can't get any kind of picture.

[faulty_damper]

What is imposed upon teachers can prevent them from teaching properly.  Many of us ended up homeschooling our children for at least a period of time because of it.  The training was there among us teachers, but were we able to apply it?

This is a myth.  What teachers do is blame the "system" as a scapegoat for their inadequacies, just like the way teachers who blame the parents.  I've known dozens of school teachers who did this, and was one myself until I got tired of hearing these teachers pregnant dog about it year after year and realized I was no different.

TESTS only prove the ability to pass tests.  So no.  The proper assessment of what a student knows is through interaction, observation, maybe the projects that a student does.  Tests are the poorest way of assessing and when I studied, that was taught right in teacher's college.

Not according to the literature.  This is again, another myth that teachers perpetuate.

I taught in the primary grades, which are formative, and thus crucial.  These grades are not respected,...

The most important grade is Kindergarten, which has lasting effects into college.  The results of a bad K teacher is incredibly difficult to overturn no matter how many "good" teachers a child will have after that.  This is why brand new teachers/zero experience should not be hired to teach K.

These four things are also concepts.  A school system may be happy to see test results, and parents may love to see homework with neat rows of numbers.  Kids can use flash cards and nowadays apps to "learn their number facts and times tables" and then they can perform like trained monkeys.  That is not teaching; it's inadequate. 

You are confusing knowledge and application.  The two are different.  And that IS teaching.  Skill is more important than knowledge.  Also, you repeat yet another myth that teachers perpetuate.

... this specific teaching device of the red and blue blocks is imposed on them and presented as a skill rather than a device.  That is what I saw happening at our end.

So your school was taken over by the government?  It happens to the worst schools here.

I understand that you guys have extensive testing imposed by the government; this has got to affect teachers' ability to teach.

No, teachers are NOT extensively tested.  The tests are incredibly easy for those who actually know the subject.  But, in fact, a LARGE proportion of aspiring teachers do not pass and have to take them repeatedly.  Some never pass and give up.

[faulty_damper]

Nice try, buddy.
I will wait for that research.
Nice try though.

Your disappointment with teachers in general may be based on some personal experience. However, it cannot justify your position. Not in front of others anyways.

Thanks for the 'reply'

You can stick your head into the sand for as long as you want, but the literature is unfortunately quite dense and overwhelmingly lopsided against your beliefs.  I told you that school teachers wouldn't like what they hear.  And they definitely wouldn't want to read it for themselves after being told that it directly contradicts those beliefs.

Everything I mentioned is directly from the literature so if you are so inclined, you can find out for yourself once you get over the negative feelings that were elicited by me reporting them.

[keypeg]

Faulty, you have done nothing but write generalities throughout this thread.  I have expressed interest in specifics in order to get a handle on things, and you have not given a single one so far. You have called things "myths" and redefined them as something they are not, which you then reacted to.  I am out of this conversation.

In fact, the subject there is TWO HANDS C POSITION.  I'll express interest in that if it ever comes up again.

Florentin, what are your thoughts about "D = the key between two black keys" as a way of orientation - something I posted about a week ago?

[faulty_damper]

You mean specific like this?

A concrete observation from over here with kids I've tutored: The educational system got reformed, and a system of teaching negative numbers was imposed involving red and blue blocks. 

This, or something very similar, was examined in the literature and found the exact same conclusion as you did.  This is an example of pedagogy, not a practice based on learning and memory theory.

There are so many of these practices out there, some codified in books and textbooks, that it's impossible to address everything without resorting to making general statements.  If you provide specifics, I can address them specifically.  But I'll cite the article I mention previously (Spencer et al, 2012) that further cites other literature.

A better way is to know the learning and memory theories and then compare it to pedagogical theory.  The two are starkly contrasting.

Learning - the process of memorization
Memory - the result of learning
Intelligence - the ability that allows for learning and memory to occur

Thinking - the process of understanding
Understanding - combining similar pieces of information
Creativity - combining disparate pieces of information

Last thing: I was very hesitant to even look at the psychological literature because I knew it was bad from reading second-hand information.  It took years before I got over that emotional block, that same emotional block that you and others have at this very moment so I know exactly how you and others feel.  You don't want to hear it even though you know, in the back of your mind, that what I am saying is entirely true.  If it weren't you wouldn't be so averse to looking in to it since there should be a host of evidence that says contrary.  I guarantee you that there isn't.  And if you were honest with yourself, you'd have to admit that this is true based on your own experiences.

The definitions I provided above are a clarification of the vagueness that people mean when they use those terms.  If you commit them to memory and use the time to apply them, I guarantee that your paradigm will shift for the better.  I am aware that they contradict some of your preconceived ideas but if you let those go, you'll be better for it.

My scientific background is in cognitive psychology with expertise in applied learning and memory.  This is where my knowledge comes from.  I have the added benefit of having been in a teaching position so I know that the literature can be practically applied.  This also helps prevent being attacked for not having practical experience.

[stevenarmstrong]

"position playing" is the devil. I don't teach it all.

[florentin]

You can stick your head into the sand for as long as you want, but the literature is unfortunately quite dense and overwhelmingly lopsided against your beliefs.  I told you that school teachers wouldn't like what they hear.  And they definitely wouldn't want to read it for themselves after being told that it directly contradicts those beliefs.

Everything I mentioned is directly from the literature so if you are so inclined, you can find out for yourself once you get over the negative feelings that were elicited by me reporting them.

So you are saying that most educators in the U.S. public school system are bad, and that it makes no difference if they have many years of teaching experience, or if they pursued higher degrees. Is that it?

Wait... you said you also taught "different subjects" for 15 years. What subjects were those, if you don't mind me asking? But the real question is this: were you also an incompetent teacher, or were you one of the very few exceptions?

Does this incompetency also apply to other professions, or is it just educators?
I mean, are all firefighters incompetent, no matter how many years they worked in the field, and how much training they received?

Is there literature and research that backs this up also?
Talk about sticking one's head in the sand...

I wonder how we ended up here, when the original question was about how long to stick with teaching position-playing.

Let's get back to the topic, shall we?

[florentin]

"position playing" is the devil. I don't teach it all.

What book(s) do you use during the first weeks/months of lessons?
Thanks for the reply.

[faulty_damper]

So you are saying that most educators in the U.S. public school system are bad, and that it makes no difference if they have many years of teaching experience, or if they pursued higher degrees. Is that it?

I'm not saying it: I'm reporting it.  However, my experiences do validate the literature.

Does this also apply to other professions, or is it just educators?

Just educators.  Doctors and nurses have immediate feedback.  If they mess up, their patients die.  Lawyers have immediate feedback.  If the mess up, their clients go to jail.  However, if teachers mess up, the students don't learn how to read or do math.  This means they are at significantly greater risk of dropping out of school years later and are more likely to do drugs and have behavioral issues.

And of course, there has to be literature and research that backs up what you are saying.
Talk about sticking one's head in the sand...

You're making a contradiction.  All of what I reported was directly from the literature which I read.  If I chose to stick my head in the sand, I wouldn't have read it.  It's out there for anyone to read.  If you choose not to, that is your choice.  But since you now know that this literature is available and choose not to pursue them, it is purposeful ignorance on your part, thus sticking your head in the sand.

And we came to this discussion because of an assertion that I made that methodologies are for the the ease of the teacher, not the students' learning.  That led to this discussion.

[florentin]

Your replies on this topic no longer deserve my attention.
You are making no sense.
Also, it is clear that your replies are motivated only by one thing: hatred towards teachers.
Well, it's a free country and a discussion forum. You are free to express your feelings.

At least the educational system had ONE good teacher, at a certain point in the past... YOU. I guess all the research you are referring to was wrong about you, and right about all other educators. So sorry you left the profession... 

Have a nice day.

[faulty_damper]

I wasn't an effective teacher before. That's the reason I studied learning and memory.  It is only in the past couple of years that this changed as a result of that knowledge, understanding, and practiced skills.  I don't know how I can objectively provide evidence for this, but I can tell you that I have made many veteran teachers (10+ years of teaching) envious of me (and not in a good way.)  I can teach one lesson and change their classroom environment for the better.  Students are relaxed (instead of anxious), well-behaved (instead of disruptive), and focused.  Their scores on homework and tests exceed what they normally would have performed under their teachers' instruction (to which one teacher said that they didn't do very well and that she had to re-teach the lesson.  I knew she was lying to save face so I later looked at the gradebook.  On the date that the homework was due, there was an inordinate amount of 100's for their homework assignments.  At no point previously had so many students received such scores.)  Students have also explicitly expressed, both in words and in writing, the desire for me to teach them in the next grade they'll be in.  It's not just because I'm "nice" or "smart" (both of which are correlated with improved student outcomes) but because I know exactly how to create the necessary environment that allows for learning to take place (which I studied and applied from the literature.)

I have read thousands of scientific articles related and remotely related to teaching.  I've invested an incredible amount of time and energy studying it because I didn't want to be that teacher, the teacher that I once was, the teacher that I am embarrassed and ashamed of.  And with that vast amount of knowledge, I simply applied the theories to see if they worked.  They do.  I have the results to show that they do.

See, in real life, I don't tell people that I've read tens of thousands of articles because that would surprise them and maybe even elicit fear because I am so knowledgeable.  (Not even my family knows and some of them work in education.)  Most experienced teachers, except for the very new, think they know everything there is to know even when they explicitly say that they are "still learning".  They continue to do mostly the same things year after year (this is corroborated in the literature.)  This is why an experienced teacher (teaching over 10 years) is no more effective than someone teaching only 3 years.  It's also the reason why a Masters or PhD isn't more effective than teachers with BAs or only a license.

Anyway, I knew that discussing this would upset people.  I make no apologies for it.  Sometimes, emotional responses must be elicited before people are willing to listen and think critically of their beliefs.

Critical thinking - comparing new knowledge to old knowledge.

[outin]

Critical thinking - comparing new knowledge to old knowledge.

Critical thinking is important. But your posts suggest either that you are trying to be provokative and simplify things to force people to think (which does not work that well unfortunately) or that you have a lot to learn about scientific discourse.

You say you have expertise and have read a ton of articles but that does not show in the way you write and the way you use links to prove your point. Most scientific research does not prove anything about the real world, it is more about getting to understand the complexity of the issue and what more needs to be studied. All research is based on assumptions that limit it's application where not all of those assumptions are met. This is especially true in social and behavioral sciences. Interdisciplinary research is still in it's infancy, which limits the usefullness of research even more.  

Science is about a process where the theories and ideas change all the time because of new research and it is never done. The old theories are necessarily not more wrong than the new ones, the frame of reference and the assumptions behind the studies may just be different. It is often impossible to apply the results to the real world, especially because we are working with politicians and budgets.

To really be able to evaluate other people's research requires the ability to do some yourself and expertise on methodology.

[outin]

Sorry, double post

[florentin]

Stating that you have discovered what you think is a more effective way to teach is ok. You are not alone in that. We all improve ourselves continually.

Stating that all educators in the public school system "suck", as you put it, is simply insensitive, untrue, and plain rude. One does not need any research literature to arrive at this conclusion.

[keypeg]

Faulty, I have also done tons of research, both in reading and in the field by talking to and observing people.  You seem to dismiss everything that I have done, as though you already know what it is, which you cannot do.  What if I stated that whatever you are saying is myth and excuses, without having a clue what you do?  It is the same thing.

So what is it that you teach?

[keypeg]

Florentin, what do you think of the idea that a student can find D via the two black keys, and thus does not need to rely on hand position to do so?

I offered this a week ago.  I have asked several times.  Will there be a response?