Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Academic Research

Polyphasicpianist:

I found the thread you cited. I took special interest in the distinction between the neural processes involved in HT and HS. The literature is divided on whether HT or HS is more efficacious. My teacher stresses HS, and then HT. I tend to think that this is a good approach, but the balance of time spent on HS versus HT is the remaining issue.

As I suspected when I posed this thread topic, piano playing has an underlying physiological basis. I don't need to be medical doctor to at least know that different brain parts control different physical movements, but I need to be aware of that fact. So now, depending on exactly which physical motion I am trying to improve, I can devise a program of practice to efficiently accomplish it based on the science of neurology. I can now better predict the results of efforts and avoid some frustration about why some of practice does not yield results for a particular learning task.

I am weary of anecdotal pedagogical aphorisms. "Do this, don't ask why it works", Teacher said to her pet monkey sitting on the piano stool.

I want science and sound theory as a foundation for the *experiment* of practicing the piano. I look at the results of my practice as data from a longitudinal study of a person who could not play the piano at all to one who enchants his audience with a Chopin Nocturne!

Honestly, I really don't think there is enough information to devise any kind of program. The science just isn't there yet. Obviously there is information that can guide you to more efficient practice habits, but basing a program solely on what current psychology and neurology tells us is, I think, jumping the gun a bit. There simply is not enough data. You would be forced to make generalizations that, given the current level of evidence, you have no good reason to make, thus increasing your probability of being wrong. This is a decidedly un-scientific way to proceed.

However, if you want the benefits of science, then the best thing you can do for your practising is to incorporate elements of the scientific method into it. Find various methods and strategies of practising, be critical of them, and "put them to the test" as it were. See what works and what doesn't, set criteria, create controls, track data, ect.

And remember, this approach need not only apply to the technical aspects of playing but can also apply to the emotional as well. You can create Likert scales and see which modes of practice generate the highest levels of engagement, affectation, happiness, or whatever. See if there are different mental strategies (e.g. visualisation) that can manipulate these scales.

Remember, You are your own best laboratory.

And by focussing on your practice in this way you will of course improve results enormously! Completely skewing any data from the different WAYS of practicing.

In England, not so long ago, students were given fish-oil to see if it improved their brain-power. Results were encouraging. Lots of fish-oil was subsequently sold.

Trouble is, ALL the students in the area were given the product. They were told why they were getting it. They received a lot of attention during the "trial".

Obviously he can't perform blind and double blind experiments, and can't create conditions that control for placebo effects on himself. But it is still better than the alternative, which is to do nothing at all. What would you have him do, not critically try and examine the effects of various methods and strategies and just pick them at random with no consideration of their efficacy?

My life is badly skewed.

Well, that's about all he CAN do! "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right!" ANY reasonable practice strategy, diligently followed with its results analysed will bear fruit. So, yes, work out a method and work hard at it. But realise you're proving nothing about the method!

A teacher who is prepared to try different techniques on different students over a period of time, might be able to reach a conclusion. Though I suspect a different teacher might reach a quite different one.

So did you think I was implying that, on the basis of my suggestions, his findings would be generalizable to the point of publication? If so, what lead you to think this? I was just advocating that he apply principles of critical thinking to his practising, that was all.

The scientific method is precisely what I had in mind! I have started keeping logbook tracking (1) minutes of practice and (2)number of errors. Of course, I have more design information about the project than I can type here such as HS and HT information, tempo, and source material (scales, and selected passages from repertoire).

Generalization is dangerous. Inductive logic is full of holes.

What I meant by designing a program of study might have led you to believe I was grounding a long-term (years) method based on scant research. Not quite. However, the presently known information about the cognitive aspects of piano playing, in particular the aspect of acquiring skills, can and should be put to the test in science projects. My project suffers from the immediate problem of researcher bias because I am the researcher and the test subject. Nevertheless, I will try to stay honest with my recordkeeping.

Ok, so when you sit down at the piano, beyond HS and HT, what kind of prctice techniques are you going to apply? I haven't seen much, or anything beyond HS/HT, that specifically describes practice techniques that you hope will take advantage of, or directly target, what is known about how the brain learns.

If you want to take a scientific approach to practicing and try to document what works better for you and what doesn't, I think that's great. But I still think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't make use of, or perhaps experiment and try out, some of the practice techniques that have been described by various teachers and/methods.

This is always the big question. What are you going to do when you sit down to practice? That is what interests me, and that is what makes the difference between someone who progresses well and someone who does not.

Painter55, are you working with a teacher? If not,again I recommend something like Practiceopedia. I think you would find much there that is in line with what we already know about how the brain learns. And it would give you methods to try out against your cognitive approach.

I might be missing something here, but it seems like without some direction (either from a teacher or something like the Practiceopedia book) all you've got is a dialogue about the brain, and nothing about what you actually will do when you sit down in front of the piano. With all due respect, it sounds like you're overthinking this without actually considering what you need to put into practice.

A time-wasting trial and error approach is what I am trying to avoid. "Try this. Humph, it didn't work, so now try this" has some value because one never knows what will work for certain. My quest is find out that some trials are not based on cognitive science and should be avoided. Results are what counts as an objective in any trial. An experienced teacher probably has reached conclusions in general about what works, and this is what they teach. I cannot deny the value of my teacher's experience, so I do what she asks.

Painter, I think what you are doing is wonderful...it would be a valuable resource to know what works and what doesn't.

One big problem I see is that the fruits of a particular practice method often do not appear immediately. Instead, they may appear months later.

This is because of at least 2 things. First, the student probably also practiced/played several if not many other things during that time, thus adding some learning to the mix.

Second, the brain takes a unknown amount of time to completely process the information, so how can it be determined that "X practice" caused "Y result", and would have caused the same result if nothing else was played/practiced during that time?

I say this because if I have learned anything about practicing, it is this, that practicing = fruits is not a linear logical process.

Its not like you practice something for one hour a day, and at the end of 30 days you have 30 hours of discernable result equal to the input.

Instead, after 30 days, you may see great results, or scant results. Yet during that time period, you continue practicing a variety of other things, including, say, scales, arpeggios, other repertoire. Then, much later, say 200 days later, the fruit of that initial 30 days, combined with all the other things you have done, manifests as good results.

In other words, I think that the very complex processes of learning to play the piano are too varied to say that 2 + 2 equals four, so I am wondering how you would take this into account in a scientific study.

Exactly. It is difficult to experiment if you have nothing to experiment with. Obviously, deriving methods based on what is currently known in the scientific literature is useful, but by ignoring methods advocated by various other non-scientific sources, you would not be doing yourself any favours. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that even though a method advocated by a instructor may only have a "I was tought this way, therefore I will teach you this way" type of rationale. This method may, nevertheless, still make use of cognitive and behavioural mechanisms completely consistent with those revealed in the scientific literature.

There are way too many variables to codify practice into a one-size-fits-all approach. Good luck trying to figure it out. What works for one student won't necessarily work for the next one that walks in the door. We all have different cognitive processes and different physiology.

Rocket said it about as clearly as it can be said.

Ummm, no we don't.

On average, everyone uses the same basic cognitive processes and everyone has the same basic physiology. If this weren't true then science would be effectively futile (medicines would not work, biological classifications would become obsolete, evidence for evolution would be non-existant, psychotherapies would be useless, ect, ect, ect.) Of course, I am not denying that are minor variations from one person to the next (e.g. things like brain plasticity due to past learning experiences, toxins, ect.) But in general these variations are minor variations within a species, and 95% of the population will fall within two standard deviations of the absolute mean. You have to remember that we are built by evolution, for the purposes of reproductive effectiveness. We tend to inflate these perceived differences in people as being more drastic then they really are, and this is because it is to our own reproductive advantage to notice these differences within our own species. This is why when you look at two dogs who are the same breed, they typically look exactly the same unless you really make the effort to seek out the differences. Such an effort, it must be conceded, is not required with humans.

Sorry to sound so coldly logical, but I felt this needed to be clarified.

I have trouble agreeing with your statement that cognitive processes are the same. Why do we all come up with different solutions, opinions and thoughts. These processes are shaped by our environment and how we are nurtured. SOmeone that is abused will have a much more different way of thinking things thru.

How do you explain pedophilia ?
Sexual preference ?
Musical preference ?

Cognitive to me goes beyond the actual micro functioning of the brain that sure , I suppose most would have the same processes going on but have a few here and there differ , and how that difference will be compounded a million times before you display a behaviour from a cognitive process to me indicates that we are all a little different, Like snowflakes.

You'll never convince me that we all have the same processes and physiology. I've been teaching for too long to believe that. People might look the same on paper, but they are definitley not the same in real practice.

Just physiologically, at 5'6", I have to do things quite differently at the piano than my 6'3" student whose torso is much longer and whose hand is vastly larger than mine. Sure there are some similarities, but I have to make many more adjustments to play large repertoire and he has to make many to play intricate things. His hand moves with a different shape and with faster muscle responses.

I started two young girls in lessons this week. One learns through example, one learns through reading. These are different processes. I cannot teach them the same way because they don't learn the same way.

Good post, Minniemay. I have been teaching for too many years, (and been alive for too many years) to believe that. You are exactly right.

Well, that settles it then, 61 years of scientific research into how humans learn is wrong.

(I am just going to assume that both the girls you mention are the same age, raised in the same household, are twins that are genetically 100% alike, and have shared identical life experiences. )

The answer to your first question actually requires an in depth knowledge of learning theory and behavioural genetics, the answer to your second only requires a knowledge of behavioural genetics. The third, only requires a knowledge of associative learning. Beyond that I won't go into anymore detail, suffice to say that if you want I can send you some references to peer reviewed papers that deal with each topic respectively.

Frankly though, I am a bit shocked you even asked the question about sexual preference. I thought it was common knowledge that people understood that homosexuality is a entirely genetic phenomenon. Scientists do not even dispute this anymore.

Oh yeah, and the first two questions (and possibly 3rd depending on which type of preference you are talking about) represent statistical outliers, meaning they are not representative examples of the population at large. So they are actually irrelevant to the point I was making.