Practice and Pedagogy

[waxwing]

I share a brief anecdote to illustrate my point.

In fourth grade, I entered a small music composition contest. My piece, "Dandelion Air," was nothing spectacular, but nonconventional. I employed only "black notes" and found my title amusing. Double entendre. Most significantly, though, the composition was a product of my wandering during allotted piano practice time.

This raises some questions and concerns in my mind.

Obviously, we all learn differently. Some students need more direction than others and find practice time not only necessary, but their only way to successfully learn an art. Others, it seems, must diverge in order to experience creative growth. I find myself in the latter category. To clarify, I am in no way suggesting that it is unnecessary to learn fundamentals of music, art, or literature (scales, color, texture, perspective, grammar, meter, embouchure, etc.). On the contrary, I believe that an artist must sort of earn the right to break/bend the rules. Nonetheless, I mention my early experience with music exploration to convey this point:

I was willing to practice in order to understand a concept, or to learn a new skill. However, I became impatient and frustrated whenever I had to repeat ten songs that demonstrated my understanding of the same basic idea, or when arbitrary grading systems/strict schedules hindered my exploration and quenched my passion.

I can remember so much from the times when I felt the freedom to discover on my own. "Dandelion Air" was entirely about my desire to learn how the black notes sounded when played exclusively. I actually enjoyed making rules for myself, but only when they allowed for inspiration and discovery. No one told me to play "only black notes," but when I did, I was fascinated to move forward in my understanding/training. Formative moments like these kept me going; the book exercises, the concerts, the grades, the admonitions to realize my full potential-- none of these factors were actually motivating. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they were more discouraging than anything else.

No, sadly, I am not a better musician for having played my trombone in the living room while my mother checked off that she had listened to one "solo" after another. I hated it. My mom hated it. I only benefited when my father was home and he decided to listen and give me some constructive criticism. He is a music teacher, you see. Otherwise, the exercises were futile.

So, I raise the questions:

Do you have ideas about practice and pedagogy, in terms of fine arts education?

What works? What doesn't?

Was there a time when you felt held back by the way you were being taught? How did you overcome the system, if it did not work for you?

If it did work for you, can you offer any explanation?

[Hexchild]

I'm not sure this reply really belongs in this topic since it moves the scope from creative theory to learning in general, but it is still a response to waxwing's post, so what can I do? :D

I used to be a teacher, and while I had that job I learned a few things about students and learning. The most important of which was, everyone is different. Keep in mind that what I taught was computer-related subjects, mostly programming, and hardly any of it would normally be considered art (although personally, I do consider programming an artform). However I believe that what I learned as a teacher can be applied to all learning, regardless of the subject. Some of it might not be useful for a student, but I'm guessing most of it would. So here is what I learned during that period in my life (or at least what I remember right now):


In terms of learning technique I found that the majority of people mostly employ one of two general styles; inductive or deductive, where:

Inductive learning means you first try out, practically, the details of a subject so that you can analyze them yourself and come up with general rules to support them; then you can compare your rules to what you read in books to refine your understanding.

Deductive learning means you first learn the general rules by theoretical study and then figure out the details yourself and try them out practically in order to validate them, to refine your understanding.


Since this looks like a personal preference that is hard to change, I suspect this variation in learning is highly related to the Jung functions. I know I am an inductive learner (figuring out what general rules to apply to the details I experience; I learn by doing), so it follows that I should suspect that INTPs naturally learn the inductive way. I won't venture to assume that it is true just yet. Finding out whether it is would be quite interesting.

As a teacher I had to provide the students with both types of learning experience in order to support both learning styles. Otherwise some students would get stuck trying to learn even the most basic stuff. I also noticed all students could benefit from both styles at least to some extent, so providing a mix is good for everyone. The solution was to constantly intermix theory and practice.

Another important aspect turned out to be the need for students to enter "inquisitive mode" before receiving any information. "Teaching is impossible; you can only learn." Meaning that my job as a teacher was not to push information on the students, but to show them the quirks of a subject in order to get them interested and then wait for them to ask for information. Once they did that, providing the requested information for them together with a few pointers was easy. If you push information on people too soon, they will go to sleep.

Association proved to be yet another important aspect. In general, the more information you associate with a subject (within reasonable limits), the easier it gets to remember it. When I provided associations for the students to make, especially visual ones, they learned much faster. Verbal association works fairly well too, such as "Roy G. Biv" for the colors of the rainbow (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet) or perhaps "Can Eat Groceries" to remember the notes of a C major triple.

I guess I should provide a couple of examples of visual association from my classes. Since what I taught was the art of programming, which mainly consists of constructing a logical process, I found that visualizing what was happening in terms of boxes with numbers or text in them and connecting lines were very useful tools. When it came to remembering a shitload of commands or instructions, writing them down on the blackboard and leaving them there for a very long time for the students to see was very effective. You not only learn the command, you also associate it with the position on the blackboard and the graphical image of the written word. In addition, the more viewpoints on the same subject I could demonstrate visually, the easier it was for most students to remember it.

Another important aspect was that of repetition at the right moments. After truly understanding something theoretical for the first time (the "aha" experience), students would usually forget the details of this newfound enlightenment if not repeated the next day, usually to their own surprise once they re-learned it. I figure this probably has to do with what happens while you dream at night (sort of a defrag on the brain I reckon). I also found that repeating the same again after a week, and then after a month, was usually enough to keep them remembering if they kept using these things practically. Some students would require more intense repetition, though, especially if they weren't really interested in the subject itself (not to be confused with merely being interested in learning about it).

It is natural to learn from mistakes. The funny thing is, they don't have to be your own mistakes. While I studied at the University of Dalarna (this was several years before I was a teacher) I witnessed an interesting take on this at a class in the auditorium. The teacher was writing some formulae while discussing their meaning. Suddenly he made a mistake, one that was quite obviously a mistake, leading to several students pointing it out, upon which he corrected it apologetically. Then after a while he made another one. And another. And another. Each time most of the students became alert and involved in the subject matter. Either this guy was having a serious case of Alzheimer's, or he was a darn great teacher.

Either way, I adopted this idea in my classes in two ways: Firstly, I occasionally did what I learned from that teacher, that is, I would make a deliberate mistake at a carefully selected moment during class. If nobody discovered the mistake I would point out later on that I had made one, and they were to find out what was wrong. The other way I employed this was by letting them learn from each others' mistakes. Each time I had given my students a programming problem to solve, after most students had finished I would let them describe their solutions, both functioning and non-functioning, while I visualized their descriptions on the blackboard. For each described solution I would then explain exactly, step by step, what would happen during the course of their program, pointing out any potential problems or mistakes I could find.

Lastly, I have never learned so much about programming as while I was a teacher. It seems that nothing motivates learning the details of a subject like teaching them to a group of thirty people asking questions you would never have thought of yourself.

That's all I can think of right now. I hope this is of use to you (or anyone).

[lexiphanic]

So, Hexchild, how far do I have to travel to take a class taught by you?

That was very interesting. I remember during my brief stint that I allowed myself to focus exclusively on producing music, I daydreamed about teaching a class about the subject. I thought it would be a blast.

I think the best way to learn an instrument would be a combination of playing that instrument in a group bolstered by the boring monotonous stuff. Ideally, since it is music, the teacher should be able to have you listen to several different recordings of appropriate material, and then have you learn that as your next piece. Allow you to kind of guide your own progression in your solo material.

I have also read of several instances of people taken piano lessons for several years, and then coming back after many years to learn their own way, and do it very well.

[Hexchild]

So, Hexchild, how far do I have to travel to take a class taught by you?

Considering that I don't do that anymore, I really don't have an answer to that question. It was kind of taxing on my introverted side. :)

Of course if you made the effort of travelling to the south of Sweden solely to get taught by me, I suppose it would only be fair that I make an exception. But I doubt it would be worth the effort. I'm not that good.

[lexiphanic]

Considering that I don't do that anymore, I really don't have an answer to that question. It was kind of taxing on my introverted side. :)

Of course if you made the effort of travelling to the south of Sweden solely to get taught by me, I suppose it would only be fair that I make an exception. But I doubt it would be worth the effort. I'm not that good.

Heh. If only more of my teachers were intuitive enough to figure out what you did, I might have made it through college.

:sobs:

[kuranes]

Very instructive Hex. Hopefully the details of your post will sink in my brain, and stay there, for times in the future when I'm teaching; though none are planned at present.

[waxwing]

I'm not sure this reply really belongs in this topic since it moves the scope from creative theory to learning in general, but it is still a response to waxwing's post, so what can I do? :DBring it on.




In terms of learning technique I found that the majority of people mostly employ one of two general styles; inductive or deductive, where:

Inductive learning means you first try out, practically, the details of a subject so that you can analyze them yourself and come up with general rules to support them; then you can compare your rules to what you read in books to refine your understanding.

Deductive learning means you first learn the general rules by theoretical study and then figure out the details yourself and try them out practically in order to validate them, to refine your understanding. Hm, I think that makes sense.



Since this looks like a personal preference that is hard to change, I suspect this variation in learning is highly related to the Jung functions. I know I am an inductive learner (figuring out what general rules to apply to the details I experience; I learn by doing), so it follows that I should suspect that INTPs naturally learn the inductive way. I won't venture to assume that it is true just yet. Finding out whether it is would be quite interesting.Yes, it would. Personally, I tend towards the inductive style, but I can see myself occasionally wanting to only know general ideas (especially when I'm being taught) so that I can learn a skill from that point. Perhaps my occasional deductive learning can be attributed to my attempt to adapt to some teaching styles.



As a teacher I had to provide the students with both types of learning experience in order to support both learning styles. Otherwise some students would get stuck trying to learn even the most basic stuff. I also noticed all students could benefit from both styles at least to some extent, so providing a mix is good for everyone. The solution was to constantly intermix theory and practice.Ah, that's great. I am fascinated by the idea of intermixing theory and practice. I've read some essays by John Dewey who talks a lot about this idea. What is theory without practice? And practice without theory? I won't try to quote him directly at this point, but perhaps later I will look up the section that is coming to mind.



Association proved to be yet another important aspect. In general, the more information you associate with a subject (within reasonable limits), the easier it gets to remember it. When I provided associations for the students to make, especially visual ones, they learned much faster. Verbal association works fairly well too, such as "Roy G. Biv" for the colors of the rainbow (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet) or perhaps "Can Eat Groceries" to remember the notes of a C major triple.Interesting. My problem was always that I had such random associations in my mind that half the time they did not help me with the relevant subject, but only made me think of different ideas. I don't think I ever had a teacher who really understood the tangential nature of my associations.



I guess I should provide a couple of examples of visual association from my classes. Since what I taught was the art of programming, which mainly consists of constructing a logical process, I found that visualizing what was happening in terms of boxes with numbers or text in them and connecting lines were very useful tools. When it came to remembering a shitload of commands or instructions, writing them down on the blackboard and leaving them there for a very long time for the students to see was very effective. You not only learn the command, you also associate it with the position on the blackboard and the graphical image of the written word. In addition, the more viewpoints on the same subject I could demonstrate visually, the easier it was for most students to remember it.I recently took an online test and found out that I am a visual-nonverbal learner, predominantly. Are you familiar with that style of learning? I am only starting to learn how that applies to my learning experiences.



Another important aspect was that of repetition at the right moments. After truly understanding something theoretical for the first time (the "aha" experience), students would usually forget the details of this newfound enlightenment if not repeated the next day, usually to their own surprise once they re-learned it. I figure this probably has to do with what happens while you dream at night (sort of a defrag on the brain I reckon). I also found that repeating the same again after a week, and then after a month, was usually enough to keep them remembering if they kept using these things practically. Some students would require more intense repetition, though, especially if they weren't really interested in the subject itself (not to be confused with merely being interested in learning about it).Wow, that's fascinating. I agree with you (but from a non-teacher's perspective). The key for me is interest level, though. If the repetition is interesting and actually keeps me going towards more "a-ha" moments, then I'm hooked. If not, no amount of repetition will excite me or make me want to learn. Do you see what I mean? I often will take it upon myself to actually learn an idea that I've recently been introduced to (usually by reading various materials on the subject).



It is natural to learn from mistakes. The funny thing is, they don't have to be your own mistakes. While I studied at the University of Dalarna (this was several years before I was a teacher) I witnessed an interesting take on this at a class in the auditorium. The teacher was writing some formulae while discussing their meaning. Suddenly he made a mistake, one that was quite obviously a mistake, leading to several students pointing it out, upon which he corrected it apologetically. Then after a while he made another one. And another. And another. Each time most of the students became alert and involved in the subject matter. Either this guy was having a serious case of Alzheimer's, or he was a darn great teacher.Beautiful. I can remember when this happened occasionally for me in school. I would be sort of off in lala land and then I would look up and notice something wasn't quite right. I would have to re-trace the steps to find out if I actually understood what was going on, and then I could recognize that there was in fact a problem. What an effective way to learn, I agree. I think it only works, though, if I am not completely on auto-pilot. I have to be more than a receiver of knowledge (perhaps in inquisitive mode, as you suggested earlier).



That's all I can think of right now. I hope this is of use to you (or anyone).Very much so. Your insight is deep and relevant to this thread, and to so much more. Way to go.

[Pan]

In terms of learning technique I found that the majority of people mostly employ one of two general styles; inductive or deductive, I wonder if some subject matters are inherently skewed toward one or the other? The first thing that came to mind for me is something very abstract like Special Relativity... is it possible to learn theoretical physics purely by induction? (Obviously it is, since that's how Einstein did it) I'm an inductive learner by choice, but dealing with certain topics forces me to use deduction. Actually, I think in such cases I have to work out some problems for myself before I'll "buy in" to a new theory, so maybe it all does come back to one style. (am I oversimplifying the distinction between learning styles?) I would assume everyone does both, just like we all use all the Jungian functions, but I agree with you in that induction seems like a very 'N'ish sort of thing.


Another important aspect turned out to be the need for students to enter "inquisitive mode" before receiving any information. "Teaching is impossible; you can only learn."

I will definitely have to keep this in mind! Seems like common sense now you say it, of course.



Interesting. My problem was always that I had such random associations in my mind that half the time they did not help me with the relevant subject, but only made me think of different ideas. I don't think I ever had a teacher who really understood the tangential nature of my associations. I've always found that those tangential associations are every bit as helpful for remembering things as more mundane ones are, as long as they are real associations and not just random thoughts. I associate the spelling of "weird" with a certain look and tone of voice of my mother. I don't even remember why that connection is there, but I remember how to spell the word...

I don't do much actual teaching (I've always avoided it) but my current job has me handling a lot of printed communication, giving details of gigs to large groups of kids and adults. I've found that organizing the information in a clear visual way is easily the most important thing I can do to ensure retention of details. I will also put in some twisted humour or seemingly random comment associated with something I want to stand out... so I definitely use the association trick there. Repetition is tricky though, and I deliberately try not to repeat information too often... I've found it tends to subconsciously lead people to believe that the information will always be there for them, so they don't bother to remember it.


It is natural to learn from mistakes. The funny thing is, they don't have to be your own mistakes. One of my strongest and least cherished memories from school was a science teacher who made a mistake and refused to acknowledge that he had, apparently because he didn't understand the subject matter. Admittedly, I still remember the distinction between total kinetic energy and temperature, but I also held no respect for him as a teacher from that point on. My contempt didn't hurt my education, but in a subject I was less interested in it certainly could have. My only point being that at some point the class/student has to be made aware that the teacher is testing them, and not a slack-jawed idiot.

Fascinating reading. Thanks.