Klarinet Archive - Posting 000083.txt from 1997/05

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: Editorial
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 20:45:16 -0400

On Fri, 2 May 1997, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> Therefore, being precise about what it is that the student needs to
> actually do to accomplish the desired effect is very important. Too many
> vague, non-physical and inaccurate "concepts" float about this musical
> world that obfuscate the real issues and confuse students who are working
> hard to learn *how* to play.

The mark of a good teacher is not necessarily one who knows exactly how an
effect is created and can articulate that knowledge in objective terms to
the student. Quite literally, every individual student's needs are
different, and a good teacher is one who has the intuitive skills which
enable him/her to tailor his/her instructional approach to the student's
personality. In a purely objective environment, I agree with John's
statement in principle. It would work perfectly if one were educating a
computer, where there would be no empirical frame of reference to exploit.

But with human beings, the direct route is not always (I would go so far
as to say seldom) the quickest, nor the easiest. Time and energy are the
salient issues, assuming that once the concept is understood, it "sticks"
and can be executed correctly every time. Invoking a student's intuitive
processes, capitalizing on their natural learning process -- which is
something unique to each individual -- results in comprehension and
assimilation of concepts in a manner which has direct and vivid meaning
to that student. There is unquestionably an element of psychology
involved in being a good communicator, and the conveyance of information
is only real when the student is able to successfully convert that in-
formation into terms which make sense from their frame of reference --
not from your frame of reference. The easier it is for them to do that,
the better the teaching methodolgy may be deemed.

After we become teachers, we do not relinquish our roles as students,
nor do we relinquish the memories of our earlier student years, which
inform our pedagogical approach. While there are doubtless times when
a straight-forward description in objective terms is the most effective
and desired manner of instruction, the episodes where those seemingly
vague, non-physical, or inaccurate concepts are imparted -- in the con-
text of a lesson -- are the ones which enable a student to exercise his/
her innate learning talents. If (s)he is confused, it's the role of the
teacher to assume a different angle and take another crack at putting the
idea into words which the student can digest. An angle of zero degrees
would represent the scientific objective approach, and one might do well
to use it as a starting point, as well as using it as a conceptual kernel
in order to maintain a clear understanding, in one's own mind, when
attempting to inject it into another's.

The law of averages dictates that blunt reptition, over time, will event-
ually result in a student being able to articulate and execute a given
idea. But if a different approach, perhaps a less direct and less scien-
tifically accurate one -- in subjectve, student-oriented terms -- brings
about comprehension and application more quickly and more easily, then the
precision and accuracy of the teacher's understanding is irrelevant beyond
acting as a conceptual guide for the teacher. As far as repetition goes,
the fact that something must be repeated multiple times indicates that
the teacher is using an approach for that concept which lacks a sufficient
number of connections to the student's subjective empirical frame of
reference.

More on the subject of learning how to play an instrument: The term
"instrument" is defined as a tool by means of which something is done.
In the world of music, instruments perform the same function as hammers,
nails, and shovels for house builders. Being able to manipulate one's tools
competently and effectively is germane only from an academic standpoint, for
it is the subjective nature of that manipulation which affords the means an
end other then its recursive self. What I'm getting at is that not only
is the direct, objective, scientifically accurate approach of teaching
not always the most efficient, but when utlitized as the basis for teaching,
it also readily foments the mentality that producing intervals of sound and
silence in a controlled manner represents an end in itself. It's a philo-
sophical question, naturally, but assuming that the goal is to become a
musician -- not merely a clarinetist -- perhaps it is rather more valuable
from an educational standpoint to fashion the teaching approach based on the
broad understanding of the desired results, placing the local minutiae in
perspective.

Neil