Advice on becoming a better teacher

[pianoholic]

Hello everyone!

I am currently 17 years old and have only started teaching piano a few weeks ago. I currently have 2 students both of whom began playing the piano very recently. I must admit that I am struggling a lot with teaching. It is very difficult for me to decide what to teach my students and how to get them to understand the basics of playing, which is why I would like some advice.

One of my students is currently studying Satie's Gymnopedie no.1 and he is struggling a lot with his left hand. I advised him to study the left hand separately and very slowly, which we spent a good few minutes of the lesson doing. Furthermore I tried to correct his hand position as much as I could, as he would often play chords with flat fingers.

My other student is playing Debussy's Claire de lune. He had a lot of difficulties with his left hand arpeggios towards the middle section, and I tried my best to explain to him the proper technique and we spent most of the lesson on that section.

My questions are as follows:
1) How would you guys go about teaching these pieces?
2) What is the best way to correct a students hand positioning?
3) When should I begin teaching a student how to read sheet music? (please note: both of the students use YouTube MIDI videos to learn pieces)
4) How should I go about choosing pieces for my students?

Anything helpful would be much appreciated.

Thanks for reading! 

[ignomike]

Ok this is a weird one. They only just started playing recently but they're learning Debussy and Satie? Oh well I'll help where I can.

Each student will have different goals, motivations and situations so the most important point is to tailor your tuition to the students' needs and make sure you discuss all this with them first so you both understand clearly and agree.

1. Try to have an objective in mind for them with each piece they learn. How is this going to help them develop? Something attainable and suited to the piece. As they are just starting one of the first goals should be an effective practise methodology so teach them using this method so they understand how to learn most efficiently.

Finding the smoothest pathway through repertoire that they enjoy is one of the hardest challenges. It may be that the arpeggios in CDL and left hand chords of Satie are a little beyond them? You can still teach it but don't expect fast progress.

Practising the Satie chord shapes in isolation would be the obvious remedy. You could teach him/her to recognize different chord structures, then apply them rapidly from different positions, then finally as written. It wouldn't be hard to 'game-ify' this and make it enjoyable.

As for CDL arpeggios, they need to be able to flow from one hand position to the next but I wouldn't expect a student to learn this from scratch so soon. I'd tell them to keep the elbow in a ready position and stay relaxed then I'd bombard them with different exercises. Just keep it manageable! If they don't get any small victories then they will get discouraged and motivation fades.

2. I never seem to have much of a problem with this. Use scales to reinforce good shape and praise them when they do it without being told. If flat fingers is the problem then remind them that the keyboard is like a laptop/computer keyboard and they wouldn't type with flat fingers.

3. Probably asap. If they are young then getting some ear playing skills and a little rote first is a goodidea but I'm guessing they aren't (Debs and Satie aren't the usual for 6yos) and they already have enough experience to start. They won't enjoy it much if it means playing simpler music but that's where you can show your skills to make it as easy as possible. Make sure they understand the benefits and don't overdo it at first. Look for ways to tie it into their other skills too - notating some of the bars they are currently learning would be helpful in many ways

4. What is their goal? What are their weaknesses and (not as important) strengths? What music do they like? What music might they like?
I recommend a mix of easy, medium and hard pieces. Each option has it's own benefits. Try to give them options to choose from but curate them and keep them inspired by playing them virtuosically and showing them how each piece will benefit them.

Hope this helps, teaching is full of self-doubt so I'm curious to hear other responses too as I'm still not immune!

[nightwindsonata]

KISS--Keep It Simple Silly.

Actually.

The best way to teach repertoire, especially advanced repertoire like Clair de Lune, is to break down all the parts and work them individually.

I would also recommend you teach them sheet music reading using a method book. Currently I'm using Faber for my students--the kids get the Primer to start, while older students get the brown books (for The Older Beginner), while I instead use the Alfred Intro to Piano for adult students. This teaches reading fairly well and gives lots of practice in sight-reading. I would also suggest that you focus on teaching specific patterns by rote--as small as an ascending 5-finger scale or a turn, and all the way up to alberti patterns and rolling arpeggios. This well give an immediate application to harmony.

This method that I described above doesn't just teach people how to play piano, it teaches them how to be musicians, and eventually your goal should be for them to be able to bring a simple (and increasingly challenging) piece to you with most of the notes and basic features figured out and understood, which allows you to spend more lesson time on artistic insights and nuances, which I am sure is the fun stuff you want to get to.

[keypeg]

Ok this is a weird one. They only just started playing recently but they're learning Debussy and Satie? O

That's the part I'm wondering about.

[quantum]

Ok this is a weird one. They only just started playing recently but they're learning Debussy and Satie?

Agreed.  Not exactly repertoire one would pair with the statement "began playing the piano very recently."  Can the OP give more on the student's music background. 

[keypeg]

There seems a bit of "cart before the horse" here. 

If you're starting to teach, you first have to get an idea of what needs to be taught.  That begins with skills and pieces go with that.  The most basic skill is where to sit at the piano at which height, where middle C is.  If your students are to read music, then they have to be taught how to read music.  And so on.

This would be hard for you to plan and sort out on your own, esp. when you're starting out.  How about looking at / buying several sets of method books for say grades 1 - 3, study what they're teaching, in what order, and figure out why.  Not just which pieces, but which concepts and skills.  One teacher who since then has his own well developed system decades in, said he started this way.  You can also look at the curriculum guideline list of organizations like RCM, ABRSM, AMEB etc. which give a framework.

Having beginner students choose their own pieces doesn't seem wise, because they won't know what to check for.  Generally speaking.  But as teacher, you also have to have an idea of the criteria you'll use.

[jgallag]

My questions are as follows:
1) How would you guys go about teaching these pieces?
2) What is the best way to correct a students hand positioning?
3) When should I begin teaching a student how to read sheet music? (please note: both of the students use YouTube MIDI videos to learn pieces)
4) How should I go about choosing pieces for my students?

Anything helpful would be much appreciated.

Thanks for reading! 

1. There's a great deal to teaching these pieces - it's probably best to start with just addressing the concerns you are facing.

Satie LH - separate the bass and chords. When the hand knows how the bass notes relate to each other, as well as how the chords relate to each other, it is easier to move back and forth. Eight measures bass alone (repeat many times), eight measures chords alone, then do as written.

Debussy LH - block first to feel the different position changes. Then, even though the blocking may involve stretching, play as written and ensure the hand stays small, releasing the thumb and pinky when they are done with their notes.

2. Hand shape needs to be felt outside of repertoire first. Many teachers use either five-finger patterns or Hanon. Then, once the student has a reference from these simple patterns of what good hand shape is, it's much easier to transfer to pieces, though it will still take work.

3. Now. Teaching by ear is wonderful, but a little reading must happen in every lesson. Start with identifying all the C's, as they are symmetrical on the staff, then use them to help identify the notes in between. Note Rush is an excellent app to begin drilling notes. Once note recognition is good, move on to intervals, chords, scales. Reading doesn't stop with note-by-note.

4. This will be hard for a while until you get experience teaching more pieces. Every time you teach the same piece to a new student, it gets a bit easier. In addition to the RCM and ABRSM syllabi mentioned, Jane Magrath's The Pianist's Guide to Standard Teaching and Performing Literature is an excellent resource. Classics for the Developing Pianist by Ingrid Clarfield and Phyllis Lehrer is an excellent series of piano literature that you should know, and each level also has a study guide available with useful tips for teaching each piece in the repertoire book.

Knowing how to play the piano is not enough to teach. Teaching is a wholly different art. Many of us have master's degrees specifically in pedagogy. You should join your local chapter of MTNA and attend the state conferences. Find any other local organizations and go to their meetings. Pianoinspires.com, run by the Frances Clark Center, has video courses on elementary pedagogy you can take.

[1hummingbird]

    Congratulations on having two students at age 17!   

You've already received plenty of good advice from others who responded here.  The first step is you need to decide which approaches to use for each student, e.g., toward reading music, chordal approach.   I agree that you need to begin with method books for most any student, even adults.  Using method books will allow you to evaluate the students' levels and go from there.  Students need stabilizing forces, and method books provide that.    If the student's only teacher has been a MIDI program, assume that they know nothing.  Music teaching needs to be INTERACTIVE.   Usually students, especially beginning students, would not select their own music pieces.  You select them, as you know what would be appropriate for a particular student.     Purchase a teacher's guide to classical music.  It's a very good investment that you will find invaluable if you continue teaching.   Many classical pieces will have a LEVEL assigned to it.  Even a LEVEL 1 will be too difficult for a starter.  A bright student may play a LEVEL 1 pieces after two to three years of learning with method books.   Also, there are plenty of piano books designed for teaching students.   Most are pretty good, and the students enjoy playing those pieces before they would be playing the master composers.          Good luck!   Be sure to have fun!

[ranjit]

A bright student may play a LEVEL 1 pieces after two to three years of learning with method books.

Then they are not a bright student, IMO. A bright student would probably be closer to about a grade 6 level or higher after three years. I don't really understand why teachers keep insisting it takes astronomically long to learn piano. I find something like bernhard's time frame on this forum to be far more suitable.

[perfect_pitch]

Then they are not a bright student, IMO. A bright student would probably be closer to about a grade 6 level or higher after three years. I don't really understand why teachers keep insisting it takes astronomically long to learn piano. I find something like bernhard's time frame on this forum to be far more suitable.

I'd say thats a little extreme. Here's how I gauge it.

Someone getting to Grade 1 in 2-3 years is average... not great, not good but at least puts in minimal effort. I work with a lot of students who do LOTS of school sports, dancing etc... so it usually takes them  years to get to Grade 1.

A gifted student would be someone who can get to Grade 1 in a year. I've got a little 7 year old who went from playing Mary Had a little lamb to playing 6 AMEB Grade 1 pieces in a single year AT TEMPO. We'll see what she can do in another 2 years time.

I'd say a prodigy would be able to get to Grade 6 in 2-3 years but pass with A+ or A grades... starting from nothing, because if they can get to Grade 6 in 3 years, in another 3 they could be doing Associate or Licentiate.

Depends on our terminology.

[lostinidlewonder]

A bright student would probably be closer to about a grade 6 level or higher after three years.

Well a bright or talented student could get even further with less time but let's not consider extremes. Start teaching the average population and you will see the average student would never get to grade 6!

For the less talented there needs to be a mixture of deep interest in learning piano, disciplined practice, following teachers instructions and persistence for people to get to the upper grade levels. This is easy to maintain in the short run but try it for years on end, most people simply cannot manage it and thus their progress sine waves with a very shallow positive gradient at best.

A wise teacher thus teaches the student at their optimal level depending on some of those factors I mentioned. Also be aware that people can be utterly happy at lower levels and fully enjoy the experience of creating music. I think it is very shallow to consider piano in terms of grades, as if it is some karate lesson and we must achieve coloured belts!

[ranjit]

A gifted student would be someone who can get to Grade 1 in a year.

Why would this be a gifted student, though? I think an average kid who puts in an hour a day should definitely be able to reach this level. A gifted student would be able to get here in a year with virtually zero effort. A year is 52 weeks of lessons...

This is a grade 1 piece. https://d29ci68ykuu27r.cloudfront.net/items/18401679/look_insides/large_file/file_0_page_0.png

The only thing I see is that little kids might find the abstract theory concepts kind of difficult, so it would take time for them to learn to read and understand the dynamics and so on. Someone more mature, say in their teens, could probably get here in a few months.

I'd say a prodigy would be able to get to Grade 6 in 2-3 years but pass with A+ or A grades... starting from nothing, because if they can get to Grade 6 in 3 years, in another 3 they could be doing Associate or Licentiate.

So, if a student can play Mozart K545 (grade 6) in 3 years, would they be able to play Chopin scherzo in B flat minor in 6 years? I think plenty of people can play the K545 in a relatively short time, but they might take quite a bit longer to reach the scherzo because you need really good technique to play it well and you can hit roadblocks. I see a gifted student as basically what you're calling a 'prodigy'. You need to be at least at that level in order to get into a good music university, I think. Is anyone who gets into a top 10 university a prodigy, then? I'm sure a lot of concert pianists played Mozart K545 by their fifth birthday, I know Argerich did at 4.

I just tend not to use "prodigy" loosely like that -- if that were the case, I would be a math prodigy. But I'm not -- a prodigy is someone who is exceptional even in top schools, who breaks the curve, defined as someone who reaches an adult professional level under 12 years of age.

[ranjit]

Well a bright or talented student could get even further with less time but let's not consider extremes. Start teaching the average population and you will see the average student would never get to grade 6!

Do you remember the bernhard thread where he taught a woman with arthritis in her 50s Schubert Impromptu op 142 no 5 from scratch in six months? I feel like the average student could get very far very quickly if they just applied themselves a few hours a day.

For the less talented there needs to be a mixture of deep interest in learning piano, disciplined practice, following teachers instructions and persistence for people to get to the upper grade levels. This is easy to maintain in the short run but try it for years on end

But can't you simply supplant more effective practice strategies? I find average students go down so many dead alleyways that I can't help but feel they could be doing much better if only they practiced correctly. The average person can read language, play a sport competently. Why not piano?

If it takes years of persistent practice, I wouldn't be able to learn piano at all, lol. I keep saying that if I was grade 1 after a year of playing I would have quit. But I forced myself to play more difficult, more interesting material which is why I continued. So I feel there has to be a better way. And I did it starting at 17, surely a young child's brain would be far more malleable? I feel like if it's a grind which takes that long, surely the student is doing something wrong? Because I have seen many people who could get to say Fantaisie Impromptu in 3 years. To me it feels like it just requires concentrated technical and musical work. Not the average student, but a gifted student (in the top 1%) -- I think they should be able to reach a grade 8 level in 3 years with good instruction. A prodigy could get much further imo.

[keypeg]

For the less talented there needs to be a mixture of deep interest in learning piano, disciplined practice, following teachers instructions and persistence for people to get to the upper grade levels.

Just on the one point on following teachers' instructions.  This assumes a good teacher giving appropriate instructions.  And here, if the instructions are poor (which happens too often), the disciplined and obedient student will be the worse for wear.  And the talented student might be thrown off course when instructions don't match what the music is telling him or her.

[lostinidlewonder]

Just on the one point on following teachers' instructions.  This assumes a good teacher giving appropriate instructions.  And here, if the instructions are poor (which happens too often), the disciplined and obedient student will be the worse for wear.  And the talented student might be thrown off course when instructions don't match what the music is telling him or her.

You can twist anything into an utter negative attribute but it makes no difference to the fact when viewed through the prism that is appropriate.

No self taught pianist goes far without standing on the shoulders of those greater than themselves. So if one never takes advice from others your progress will be stunted and there will be plenty of issues you didn't know you don't know about.

I only deal with effective teaching so notice students struggle when they do not take advice, it stunts their progress.

[lostinidlewonder]

Do you remember the bernhard thread where he taught a woman with arthritis in her 50s Schubert Impromptu op 142 no 5 from scratch in six months? I feel like the average student could get very far very quickly if they just applied themselves a few hours a day.

I didn't read all of his threads in any case there were plenty of education issues that we didn't agree upon so I don't take his contribution as a leading standard which never should be challenged. The idea of "a few hours a day" already eliminates the vast majority of students studying piano.

But can't you simply supplant more effective practice strategies? I find average students go down so many dead alleyways that I can't help but feel they could be doing much better if only they practiced correctly. The average person can read language, play a sport competently. Why not piano?

The correct strategy is one thing  actually doing it effectively over the long term is a complete other thing! It is easy to talk and think about something but when it actually comes to it to implement it over the long term this is actually where the challenge lies.

If it takes years of persistent practice, I wouldn't be able to learn piano at all, lol.

I'm sure you mostly practice daily more than 30 minutes at a time. The average student though missed days  can even go entire weeks without any practice at all.

I keep saying that if I was grade 1 after a year of playing I would have quit. But I forced myself to play more difficult, more interesting material which is why I continued. So I feel there has to be a better way.

Teaching many people will give you insight beyond your own experience. Even teaching a small handful can give biased perspectives as to what is possible. Simply giving harder and harder music to try and push a student into improvement can be useful sometimes but it will have most simply quitting. The average student wants to do things successfully without a huge amount of challenge.

And I did it starting at 17, surely a young child's brain would be far more malleable?

I think people overestimate how effective a child's mind works when it comes to piano. You can have talented young children just as much as you can have those who struggle to develop. Just because you teach a child doesn't mean they have a natural knack for everything musical and and can learn/think faster than adults.

I feel like if it's a grind which takes that long, surely the student is doing something wrong? Because I have seen many people who could get to say Fantaisie Impromptu in 3 years.

Many as in from the internet? You can obviously get a biased perspective from that of course and we cannot always rely on people being totally truthful, they do extend truths on the internet merely to compete with others and look better, there certainly is a high propensity for that! Actually teaching many people gives you actual insight into how one learns a d develops and I assure you the vast majority of people learning piano will never play FI.

To me it feels like it just requires concentrated technical and musical work.

Many goals individuals have are certainly not to play piano at high grade levels and that's a good thing imho! Goals in piano are various, if we all merely want to play at high grade levels then the landscape of education would be rather dull. As it stands individuals all have different desires and music that inspires them, sad is the student who only enjoys high grade leveled pieces but struggles with the lower ones, happy is the student pleased with what music they can achieve, they often end up playing at higher grade levels because they work hard with music they enjoy. Those staring at grade levels often spend a lot of time thinking about it rather than  working to get there or they can over extend themselves wasting time working on pieces for too difficult and not developing a strong base, it really can be a distraction.

Not the average student, but a gifted student (in the top 1%) -- I think they should be able to reach a grade 8 level in 3 years with good instruction. A prodigy could get much further imo.

I find it a waste of time to consider how fast people can learn, it either depresses you or gives you a big head none which is beneficial. Each person is an individual and piano study should be a lifetime journey that never ends. I find looking at timelines from other people doesn't say much certainly when looking near the extremities, personally I deal with the average and it is important to nurture the average lest they feel inferior and unworthy of a relationship with playing music.

[ranjit]

I'm sure you mostly practice daily more than 30 minutes at a time. The average student though missed days  can even go entire weeks without any practice at all.

Yes but what I mean is that I see tangible improvement with every practice session, and that is why I feel the motivation to put in the time. If it was largely the same week after week, I would not be as inclined to practice regularly. I can't stand the feeling of endless effort seemingly going into a black hole. So I forced myself to quickly get to a level where my practice was efficient enough to observe rapid (at least what it seems to me) progress. And I tried to think out of the box and look for "shortcuts", as much as piano teachers tend to hate that term.

So that's what I mean -- if after two years of persistent effort I was at a grade 2 level, I would personally not want to continue. I am not a very disciplined person who sets up schedules and grinds for years. I need instant gratification lol -- you know the times when I attempted to play pieces like HR2 just so I could feel they were within reach. I just feel that being so tenacious is unnecessary -- if that was the case I would have quit long ago -- and that progress in itself would be the reward if people realized how to do it.

Can't play a Chopin waltz Monday -> can play it through Thursday: that makes you want to continue because you feel like you're getting out what you're putting in. So I feel, if only people realized how quickly effective practice can improve your playing, a lot of the motivation might come automatically. With sporadic practice one doesn't see the results of their input, so maybe that's why piano students feel like it's a slow grind for years and years. It has not been my experience at all, assuming you put in at least a couple hours a day of solid effort. I personally feel like a lot of the difference can be attributed to amount of effort and quality of practice rather than talent.

I tried it out with a student, and it did work: in four weeks, he understood the principles of weight and how to effortlessly get strength and control, his left hand was getting much better as I explained how to use mirror practice and how to observe and mimic hand movements, and so on. And this was with fairly little practice, less than 30 minutes a day (he was a busy person but very interested). So I feel it can work, and it's just that I see so few teachers actually teaching along those lines that it makes me wonder.

[lostinidlewonder]

Yes but what I mean is that I see tangible improvement with every practice session, and that is why I feel the motivation to put in the time. If it was largely the same week after week, I would not be as inclined to practice regularly.

"Persistent" practice is the key term that I was interested in, practicing every day. This is a challenge for the average piano student who actually doesn't practice daily on a regular basis even if there is progress to be made and observed with each sitting. Humans are actually naturally lazy.

I can't stand the feeling of endless effort seemingly going into a black hole. So I forced myself to quickly get to a level where my practice was efficient enough to observe rapid (at least what it seems to me) progress. And I tried to think out of the box and look for "shortcuts", as much as piano teachers tend to hate that term.

If one fast track through the syllabus of course there will be holes in ones ability level. There is generally an opportunity cost when one rushes through and expands their ability by simply learning more and more challenging works without solidifying the basics.

So that's what I mean -- if after two years of persistent effort I was at a grade 2 level, I would personally not want to continue. I am not a very disciplined person who sets up schedules and grinds for years. I need instant gratification lol -- you know the times when I attempted to play pieces like HR2 just so I could feel they were within reach. I just feel that being so tenacious is unnecessary -- if that was the case I would have quit long ago -- and that progress in itself would be the reward if people realized how to do it.

When it comes to teaching (and this is the teachers board) one has to see past their own experiences. In fact I have come across a number of students who are impatient and want to learn harder works which they dream of playing only to see them flounder about and never really master it. It leaves one thinking the piano journey is about unmeasurable amounts of time towards mastery, or forever trying to reach the summit of a mountain only never to get there. In fact the vast majority of students of piano will have to put up with slow progress but find enjoyment within this path which is very much possible.

So I feel, if only people realized how quickly effective practice can improve your playing, a lot of the motivation might come automatically.

It is just not so. I have taught many students who progress very fast during lessons only to not apply it on their own when left on their own, this even if they actually know the process that needs to be done. To me it feels like a game of golf where I watch the student hit the ball then drag them towards the next shot, in the lessons they do get up and walk on their own, but when I am gone they have no one to push them and motivate them to actually do the work in an efficient and persistent manner. I think people who work effectively highly underestimate this lazy human nature which I see all the time being a teacher.

With sporadic practice one doesn't see the results of their input, so maybe that's why piano students feel like it's a slow grind for years and years. It has not been my experience at all, assuming you put in at least a couple hours a day of solid effort. I personally feel like a lot of the difference can be attributed to amount of effort and quality of practice rather than talent.

A couple hours a day really is not feasible for the vast majority of students. Start teaching more of the genreal public and you will see the THOUSANDS of reasons why it is not possible, of course it is not impossible but it's just too troublesome for many. So what do you do, tell those students who cannot make regular practice a thing to simply quit? I guess you can be a teacher who only deals with students who work hard and listen to everything you say, that is an easy pathway to take. Personally I have always enjoyed teaching the troublesome student who struggles to achieve, there lies much to learn about human nature and how one may coach others to make adjustments over time.

I tried it out with a student, and it did work: in four weeks, he understood the principles of weight and how to effortlessly get strength and control, his left hand was getting much better as I explained how to use mirror practice and how to observe and mimic hand movements, and so on. And this was with fairly little practice, less than 30 minutes a day (he was a busy person but very interested). So I feel it can work, and it's just that I see so few teachers actually teaching along those lines that it makes me wonder.

Like I said you will get students who do regular practice and work hard and make time and listen to advice etc. It is just not something you are normally going to come across if you teach the general public. Most teachers of piano do not teach just conservatory music students or hard working students, most of them are young kids who have a "play" mentality rather than a disciplined work hard mentality. You also come across adults who have a family, work and other commitments in their life but like the idea of learning some piano, do you merely say to them to give up until they can find dedicated time? A teacher needs to solve these problematic situations which are very common, I assure you any teacher of piano who teaches the general public will attest the same.

[ranjit]

You make an interesting argument, one I haven't thought of in exactly those terms. Perhaps I'm a strange example, for me play and work intermingle and are inseparable from each other, always have been. I naturally gravitate towards a flow-like state and enjoy solving very hard puzzles. Rather than it being work OR play, I try to convey this sensation of it being both. Learning is kind of just what I do for fun, although pushing yourself to your limits may not be fun learning to a certain extent is something I just do naturally. There is a sense of excitement when you realize just how to push off a chord to get a grand sound or something similar, when you see all the possibilities and things you can do. There's a lot to be gained from technical experimentation, which I think I manage to get across sufficiently well. I think people appreciate it when I'm with them, it can be kind of like a game with someone present. But as you said, it isn't something easily replicated on one's own time.

[robertus]

My advice- pupils are basically responsible for their own progress. Give them very easy music to begin with, explain it carefully, DEMONSTRATE things (playing is better than talking). Then be patient. When they have mastered something, give them something different or maybe very slightly harder. If they are keen and talented, they will progress, if not- they won't. Don't be a perfectionist (except with yourself!)

Also, be really patient and tolerant. Try to enter into a type of Zen state before lessons. Think of yourself as a counselor, whose job is basically just to listen to other people sharing their problems.

Also, if you are really good yourself, you will inspire your students to try hard! Then, you can spend half the time performing for your students.

[anacrusis]

My advice- pupils are basically responsible for their own progress.

It depends on what you mean by this. If you are a crap teacher who teaches poorly its not the student's fault if they don't progress following your crappy instructions.

Also I do not think small children should be held responsible for that, because they are small children. Show them things, inspire them, and let them enjoy themselves (if they like piano) while you guide them, and let them do something else than piano if they don't. I think it's the adult's responsibility to supervise and guide that, not the child's.

[robertus]

It depends on what you mean by this. If you are a crap teacher who teaches poorly its not the student's fault if they don't progress following your crappy instructions.

Also I do not think small children should be held responsible for that, because they are small children. Show them things, inspire them, and let them enjoy themselves (if they like piano) while you guide them, and let them do something else than piano if they don't. I think it's the adult's responsibility to supervise and guide that, not the child's.

Sure- I don't mean that the teacher shouldn't do their best to inspire and guide, etc. But, on the other hand, a teacher shouldn't feel guilty if they sometimes encounter a student who just don't like playing the piano (especially if enrollment in lessons is the parents' decision).....
.

[keypeg]

I agreed with everything you wrote but this last paragraph leaves me conflicted.

Also, if you are really good yourself, you will inspire your students to try hard! Then, you can spend half the time performing for your students.

When a master musician plays a piece of music, he is applying all his knowledge and skills to make it sound as it does.  If a student tries to sound like that, he'll fail and feel frustrated.  "Trying harder" won't get him there either, because he doesn't know that the teacher did particular things with the music to have that effect.  I look at this with caution.