Stub I don't think formal pedagogical training is or should be required for someone to teach piano and, imo, is something that might be nice to have, but not required by any stretch.

I've encountered good teaching with no formal training, and also bad teaching with high credentials, so I agree. Stub, I was cautiously addressing a situation that was brought up here. What you responded to had two elements: training and experience.

Mention was made of (an) individual(s) who regularly criticize(s) students, always with the same critiques and I'd say assumptions. Experienced teachers are the least likely to do so because you need to assess where a student is at, looking at a lot of different things they're aware of. The title "teacher" carries authority in people's minds, so that they may doubt themselves. If a person say they "teach" - it can mean working with a handful of students in some capacity - that does not give the broad overview needed to assess people on-line. In fact, the experienced teacher is the least likely to do so.

The subtopic here seems to have been the idea of teachers giving feedback here (though I might have misunderstood Ranjit). I don't think that experienced teachers whose primary job is teaching would do something negative. I do suspect that they might refrain from assessing, because they know how much is involved.

hope this clears that up. I don't like the feeling of stepping into a hornet's nest. This site is it's own place and that is FANTASTIC.

      keystring, my thoughts exactly! It's one thing to prefer a certain method or genre. It's an entirely different thing to broadly accuse anyone who dares to think a little differently that they don't know anything at all about anything.

        There are teachers of all sorts ... some are parents (or others) teaching kids, and those parents (or others) may be very good teachers ... without having received certificates etc. And those parents or others may be both very good piano players, that had lessons ... and also very good at teaching their skills to others. And there are the professional teachers ... with certificates etc.

        But ... of course, we have to support the 'professional' teachers as well. And we know there are all sorts. In any group or population ... you encounter various sorts.

        As for piano ... it is a musical instrument as we know. And it and music and learning and etc means different things to different people.

        As for teaching and learning ... there will be case by case situations. And it all takes time to find out what the situation is ... such as a student isn't putting in enough time or effort ... and why ... eg. other social/recreation/leisure activities, or a high workload at school, or not interested, or is one sort that doesn't learn at some average rate due to what reason there is, or due to another teacher not teaching 'correctly' (can be subjective) ... etc. Or a combination of mix of those conditions. There can be grey areas.

        Animisha Stub For the not-so-fine teachers, I don't think pedagogical training would be of much consequence.

        I don't agree. Teaching the piano involves a set of skills that can be learned - maybe not by all, but by most people.

        Yes, certainly some teaching skills can be learned, but (in my opinion) teaching is more of an art than a science. You can't teach the desire to teach, patience, wisdom, a mindset committed to doing what is best (and works best) for the student. Keystring mentions experience. Experience is wonderful and carries a lot of weight, but there are inexperienced teachers who have the teaching mindset and they are wonderful, too. You can also have bad teachers with a lot of experience, and they (sadly) are not likely to be open to being re-trained .

            It may be good to answer the original question, "Any teachers here?"

            I'm on the fence, and in-between. I do have a teaching degree for school, with learning disabilities & 2nd language learning in there. (I'm not the only language teacher here). I've taught in the classroom and also one-on-one; looked into alternative systems such as Waldorf, visiting classes, The one-on-one later on often was troubleshooting. The first time I ever had music lessons, it was as an adult on a new instrument, and a bunch of things went wrong. At the end of that, I got a piano, which I had played self-taught as a child. Because of the first experience, I went deeply into teaching-learning for music - so as to not fall into a hole as a student a 2nd time. Some of this was public dialog and a lot was private, including with a number of teachers and over a longish time. In my studies with my main teacher, pedagogy, teaching ideas, have been an element for quite a few years now.

            I am still a student, and still learning. I've explored problems and solutions with fellow students, including passing on things that I've learned in all of this. Some of this may be considered "teaching". And also for me - learning. As far as that is concerned, I see fellow-students in the fora sharing experience and guiding all the time - maybe there's a gray and blurry line. A couple of teachers have urged me to start teaching for real, like officially. So, dunno.

            The things that interest me especially has to do with the process of learning, approaches. This does mesh with my teacher training, plus what I learned from actual music teachers. In "school teaching" we learned to create teaching units, set out aims, objectives, means of getting there, assessing. That's geared to teaching a group, and a tad cumbersome for individuals doing music - but some of it applies. In learning to play the piano we are aiming to learn to play a given piece: we are also learning to acquire skills; both things intersecting. There's a whole gamut of stuff attached to all that. How does a teacher bring these things across, in what order - what activities does a student do at home so as to acquire these things, organizing their time how, etc.? This interests me greatly because of that first experience. There's a thread here about a scientific approach (dunno the exact title atm), and it has some of those elements.

            I cannot call myself a piano teacher or music teacher, though.

            Stub Yes, certainly some teaching skills can be learned, but (in my opinion) teaching is more of an art than a science. You can't teach the desire to teach, patience, wisdom, a mindset committed to doing what is best (and works best) for the student.

            It is indeed both an art and a science. Yes, there is patience, commitment etc. - but how do you do the actual teaching? What kinds of things do you teach first, and how do you set about doing so? Have you an idea of how the student should practise these things at home - have you thought of transmitting this how to the student, and if young, the parents? Are you even aware that there are skills, and which ones, or will you simply teach simple music followed with more complicated music, and hope that skills will magically appear through the act of trying to sound good, like the teacher? These are questions we might ask ourselves.

            The other end of the stick is the teacher who learned a rigid pedagogy - things must be done in this order and manner, and they "work" because that's how it's always been done - and those students who don't learn must lack talent, or are lazy - never examining the methodology and its soundness. This goes to what you wrote "and works best for the student".

                Stub but (in my opinion) teaching is more of an art than a science.

                You could say the same of playing the piano! 😉 Yet, here we are, some for whom playing the piano comes naturally, and others who must work hard to make it sound good. I am in the latter category.

                So, if playing the piano can be taught, teaching to play the piano can be taught. 😎

                PS Keystring says it better than I do.

                *
                ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...

                • Stub replied to this.

                    keystring It is indeed both an art and a science. Yes, there is patience, commitment etc. - but how do you do the actual teaching? What kinds of things do you teach first, and how do you set about doing so? Have you an idea of how the student should practise these things at home - have you thought of transmitting this how to the student, and if young, the parents? Are you even aware that there are skills, and which ones, or will you simply teach simple music followed with more complicated music, and hope that skills will magically appear through the act of trying to sound good, like the teacher? These are questions we might ask ourselves.

                    The other end of the stick is the teacher who learned a rigid pedagogy - things must be done in this order and manner, and they "work" because that's how it's always been done - and those students who don't learn must lack talent, or are lazy - never examining the methodology and its soundness. This goes to what you wrote "and works best for the student".

                    In many of the Commonwealth countries (so I understand), the question of what to teach and when has been formalized for the teacher by the ABRSM or RCM grade system. Beneath the grade syllybi lie many decisions about how to teach, but the outline is there. In the U.S. and many other countries where the grade system is not well-established, the teacher is on his or her own. This is probably where/why teachers get locked into teaching in a certain way, often the way they were taught. Potentially, non-grade teachers have more leeway to individualize lessons to suit the student, and more experienced and established teachers probably do, but I can see how the extra work might lead some to stick with a method that they know works for most of their students. Though many teachers are dedicated to teaching and want their students to succeed, it is a business.

                    As for "lazy" or "lack talent," it does happen and can apply to both students and teachers. (P.S. "Talent" is a whole different topic and one I hesitate to even mention.)

                        Animisha You could say the same of playing the piano! 😉 Yet, here we are, some for whom playing the piano comes naturally, and others who must work hard to make it sound good. I am in the latter category.

                        So, if playing the piano can be taught, teaching to play the piano can be taught. 😎

                        I'm with you in the latter category. 😀
                        I'm not sure about the equivalence of teaching how to play the piano and teaching about teaching how to play the piano. To paraphrase what you wrote above, for some teachers teaching comes naturally, for others they must work hard to teach adequately and even then it's not enough. Better than any formal pedagogy is (imo) observing "good" teachers working with students, and having had good teachers yourself, with the understanding that "good" can mean different things to different people.

                            Stub Better than any formal pedagogy is (imo) observing "good" teachers working with students, and having had good teachers yourself, with the understanding that "good" can mean different things to different people.

                            Additionally, there are so many different types of teaching. While the principles might be similar, it can go in many directions. I've studied with some teachers who went through a kind of strict Soviet program for gifted pianists. It is wonderful teaching, but only works for certain kinds of students.

                              Stub In many of the Commonwealth countries (so I understand), the question of what to teach and when has been formalized for the teacher by the ABRSM or RCM grade system. Beneath the grade syllybi lie many decisions about how to teach, but the outline is there.

                              The RCM gives a list of results in various categories: It does not, in fact, give "what to teach". That requires a teacher who knows their craft, otherwise it falls short. I discussed this extensively with Elissa Milne some years back. Elissa's material is featured in the AMEB repertoire: she gives (gave?) lectures to teachers about teaching and has written extensively. No, the outline isn't really there - at best it's better than nothing.

                              To discuss this, one would have to define what "what to teach" actually means. It might get long and complicated to get into it.

                              This is pulled out of my hat and may be a poor example:
                              The last RCM etude I was assigned was grade 7, in violin, so I was in that system for a while. I've looked into all of that since - there are a host of supporting skills I had not learned. When I passed my grade 1 exam with flying colours, the adjudicator wrote in that the sforzando should have been played at the frog of the bow to make it crisp: I had not learned anything about areas of the bow. Such things are not listed. Instead you have repertoire, scales and arpeggios, etudes, and later theory exams. How (including piano) do you play those scales? What types of skills do you need to acquire so as to play those pieces?

                              As I said, I am also a trained teacher. When we create teaching units and individual lessons, it is broken down into skills, supporting skills, underlying knowledge. It also includes guidance in how to practice and learn. These are not included in things like RCM, ABRSM, AMEB etc. It is assumed that the teacher knows how to teach, and organize these things. Otherwise reaching those "milestones" can become a hollow thing.

                                Quick addition: Originally Elissa corrected me publicly back then during a discussion. I had written that RCM (AMEB etc.) give a framework. In my last years doing violin I had ordered the syllabus so as to get some kind of framework or map myself, which had been a step up from just going through the repertoire and etude book that students had to buy. Elissa corrected me. She said that it is designed for exams, and it is geared toward things that can be measured. This made me think. A lot of important things in music are immeasurable. I'm still pondering this.

                                She has also put out a series called Piano Plates. (The P has special meaning in Australia for beginner drivers). It was a kind of anti-exam, exam material, and seems to aim at the "immeasurable" (and free, creative) side of music and piano. Those joining AMEB would tend to be the exam-minded, and maybe this can have an influence. I watched some people playing PP material. A teacher on-line seemed to spoil the purpose by setting out strict rules for perfect results, which goes against the whole spirit of exploration and discovery. There was also an older guy happily playing away, and he seems to have picked up the spirit and purpose. ... Ok, this was a digression. 😃

                                  keystring Elissa corrected me. She said that it is designed for exams, and it is geared toward things that can be measured.

                                  That's an interesting perspective! I grew up mostly in the RCM system (except for two years when we lived in the States) and the adjudicators definitely grade on musicality as well as accuracy. I was told that they'll never give you 100% on an exam because that would imply that your playing was perfect, and no one is perfect.

                                  I think the RCM system is great. It ensures that you learn pieces across a broad spectrum of classical styles at the same (hopefully appropriate) difficulty level, and starting in Grade 5 you also have to take music theory and history to earn the certificate for the grade. My friend who used to be a professional violinist said that the education that I got as a kid surpassed anything he learned until conservatory (and he felt very behind then). I certainly didn't appreciate having to take the extra classes and exams at the time but now as an avid classical music concertgoer I really appreciate the knowledge!

                                  But anyway, yes, there is so much that is immeasurable in music and teachers have to know what to teach. But I think that RCM has a great infrastructure for progressing.

                                    keystring She said that it is designed for exams, and it is geared toward things that can be measured. This made me think. A lot of important things in music are immeasurable.

                                    Another point that can be made here: It is also mostly geared towards things that can be measured by most qualified teachers. There are many things that are objective and can be measured, but would require a very knowledgeable person to assess. Often, teachers themselves are unaware or have not been taught these things. That doesn't necessarily mean they are immeasurable, just difficult to assess by those who aren't experts.