Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Interleaved practice

I don't think very many serious and advanced pianists limit practice of some passage or section to three minutes or even any amount.

Yeah, this doesn’t seem like a popular method among experienced players. Which does make me kind of skeptical about it. But what to do, I am seeing results in shorter practice periods! What would you suggest to someone who is short on time?

What you think doesn't matter. The strategy is effective - try it and see - and taught by serious pedagogues.

Make it stick

What you think doesn't matter. The strategy is effective - try it and see - and taught by serious pedagogues.

Make it stick

I don't think being short on time changes how one practices. If you feel you do better with interleaved practice that method would work whether you could practice 1/2 hour or 2 hours.

I think far more important than using or not using interleaved practice is what you do during practicing. If there is a technical or musical problem what do you do to try to fix it other than just playing the passage again and hoping for the best?

I don't see anything in the article that dictates 3 minutes (maybe I missed it).

...if it really was so good it would be a standard way of teaching...

But am I to understand that when you get to that 3-minute-cup-is-full point, you don't need a break, you just switch to another practice element and that is enough to get you back in focus?

I don't think very many serious and advanced pianists limit practice of some passage or section to three minutes or even any amount.

Is it really necessary to count minutes though? I find it very tough to keep track of time. What may feel like 3 minutes may as well be 10! Of course, it may be my personal shortcoming

After trying and experimenting several things, I feel I practice the most efficient, when I just keep track of the number of repetitions of a section. A section can be a couple measures, a phrase, transition measures.. anything that requires repeated practice. I don’t count the repeats even, but it’s easier to have a general idea of the count. If I'd have to guess, I stop anywhere between 5-10. Being strict about a small number of repetitions at a time, allows me to not wait for the “focus to go” before starting a new section. I identify the “sections” in the beginning, and round-robin through them till I feel like a break/change.

I think it should have similar effects as the “time measurement” approach you are discussing. Isn’t it so? This required some discipline at first. But now it’s kind of becoming second nature, and freeing up time for other things like sight reading, maintenance of old pieces, etc.

Oh, and can you please tell me, if this is in sync with the ideas of “interleaved practice” you all are discussing? I would hate to divert this discussion again

Did you not read the article or just miss this?

“The learning from interleaved practice feels slower than learning from massed practice. Teachers and students sense the difference. They can see that their grasp of each element is coming more slowly, and the compensating long-term advantage is not apparent to them. As a result, interleaving is unpopular and seldom used.

Teachers dislike it because it feels sluggish. Students find it confusing: they’re just starting to get a handle on new material and don’t feel on top of it yet when they are forced to switch. But the research shows unequivocally that mastery and long-term retention are much better if you interleave practice than if you mass it.”

...I don't think the tests are very conclusive...

Hi Tech-key! I have an old mobile phone, that I keep charged. I turn on the stopwatch when I start playing, put it besides the score, and when I see that it has turned to 3, I finish the section. Sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes a bit later. But this three-minutes idea is of coure very arbitrary. If counting the repeats works for you, great. Personally, I would lose count. And you are not diverting the discussion.

Hi Animisha! Stopwatches drive me nuts. Good to know that counting qualifies too. I was wondering whether I had it backwards. Thanks

Again, what you think doesn't matter. Forty years of sports research and follow up studies have shown its effectiveness. Read the book. Try it. Don't keep trying to hide what we know with what you think.

I gave a reason why I didn't think one of the test mentioned was conclusive.

Hi again Tech-key. I think it is all about getting inspired about what others tell, and finding out what works for you. Not about what qualifies. I tried the ten minutes per section idea that was mentioned somewhere else, didn't work for me. I try three minutes interleaved and I have never been more happy practising. So what suits your mind best?