How do you teach a student who has regressed and prevent it from happening? For example, a student was already on the 3rd method book of two different methods and supposedly cannot play at that level any more. Their level of playing is back at the 1st method book. I've never known anyone to regress and am very confused. Does this really happen? I'm beginning to wonder if it was made up to avoid challenges. Are there certain root cause questions to ask and certain methods to get back to where they were?

I've had transfer students who didn't have a solid foundation. It was easy to identify what needed to be added to the curriculum through an interview and observing how they play. I'd just continue where they left off and gradually add the new concepts. However, with a student who has regressed, they already learned many concepts and I'm finding it hard to identify the causes and re-piece everything back together.

Has this particular student lost an interest in piano?

Is he/she practicing?

Maybe there are some life stresses such as divorce, etc...?

Learning disablilities perhaps?

Or not liking the repertoire/method books that you have mentioned?

Anyone or more of these things might be it.

You probably already know this but to be able to prevent it you need to find out the cause first. And even then you may not be able to prevent it.

Frustrating, I know.

Have you tried to find out the problem by talking to the parents?

I think the key word there might be "supposedly," especially if this student is a child. My 10 year old nephew often plays dumb to get out of things he doesn't want to do--it's one of his favorite tactics. Like, he'll say he's unable to wash the dishes because he's forgotten how the faucet works.

It's possible that there's some physical/medical reason for your student's regression, but I'd guess it's more likely that he's purposely dragging his feet. Out of curiosity, do you get the sense that he/she really wants to take piano lessons?

As I see in myself, I consider real ability to do things as fluctuating - more for some people than for others. Physical health and psychological environment may affect it - even simple things as enough water, and stress increases its body use... Own and other's expectations may help, or may paralyze action.

Even with some positive motivation, the 'internal cost' to try repeatedly with too little effect, or embarassment about errors may outweigh that. And if some peak result in the past shows some potential, it doesn't mean it's easily repeatable.

Amanda Baggs is considered 'severely autistic', can hardly talk but expressed this very well:
http://www.autistics.org/library/more-autistic.html

So for a good teacher, it's good to help achieve what it can be achieved realistically, overcome technical barriers, but without inadequate personal pressure. That CAN make it much worse.

Miaeih, it happened to me, in a sudden downward spiral that happened within weeks after a year of seeming soaring success. My teacher had 25 years experience and had never encountered such a thing. I was lost for about 1/2 year and then improved to semi-lost.

In my case some things had gone wrong at the level where the foundation of how you play is built - both physical and conceptual. There were reasons for this which are probably not the same for your student. But it was by getting at things at that level - foundations created in the beginning, that things began to turn around. A higher level of playing rests on the solid things of the lower level. If one of these basic things is ruined and gets fixed, then a foundered advanced student may find a sudden improvement in the advanced things they once did.

You write in terms of a method book. Such method books systematically build up individual skills and concepts in stages, and interrelate them in music - that's how things are taught generally. Are you able to isolate specific elements that the method books build, and which are necessary parts of learning to play the piano, that this student is suddenly having problems with?

Another thought has occurred: Did this student by any chance advance unusually quickly? Is it a talented student? The reason I am writing this is that the stages in methods and programs are meant to teach a student how to do some basic things which later get combined. A talented student may get at the results through instinct and musical vision but miss the "way" since they don't have to slog through it. The foundations are not actually there even though the student seems to have gotten them - otherwise how can they play the music that they do? This is part of what happened to me. Among other things, I am rectifying the situation by consciously learning the things that I didn't need to use as tools for getting at the notes, because those basic things are something we draw on for the more difficult stuff. I can already do the things that those basic items help a student to do, but I don't have the basic items and I need them for other things.

Without analyzing what happened to me in particular, the general idea is that a talented student can zip through material, producing the music, but miss the foundations (details of "how") that are being built by the method, because they don't have to use the method in order to get the result. The question becomes again - is there something basic that the method builds which got sits underneath and got lost or altered or destroyed.

Has this student been influenced by anyone else to think differently about piano playing or approaching music? Are they in any way doing things differently than they used to? Is music being taught in school all of a sudden?

Thank you, ROMagister, for that informative article on autism.

An interesting question, miaeih. We generally face students who seem to plateau for what seems inordinately long periods, but we seldom face actual regression.

I'm sure that as a teacher, you've learned that you really have to be in tune with the student (and when you're teaching load is 35+ students, that's quite a feat!) to the point of recognizing and differentiating boredom, lack of interest, competing activities, hormonal changes, school and social issues, etc., etc., etc.

Working with very elementary students, we have to be always on guard that students are not just memorizing specific patterns and pieces rather than learning the basics.

Also, I hate to say it on a public forum, but our school systems are abysmal these days, and students come to me lacking foundation knowledge that was expected of students over the previous two centuries. This includes vocabulary, arithmatic competence, general knowledge, etc. In these situations, you have to literally do the school's job for them, or else your student is the loser.

And I would 2nd keystone's observation about talented students zipping through material without comprehension of the basics.

John, this is drifting off topic, but I have had the thought that for those of us who are talented, musical, untaught, and adult, our first material should be unpredictable and unfamiliar material. Well known songs are typically introduced so that the average child or student does not get caught in a rut of mechanical robotic note by note playing. But what happens to a talented student is that their fingers fly or force themselves into the melody and they don't get the elementary note positions, finger motions, close and far fingers (intervals) which they will need later.

With a student who does not have this musical recognition, he will have to concentrate on those things because it's the only way that he can acquire the music. Once he is able to play the music, this is a sign that he has acquired the skills. That same sequence becomes a trap for the talented, because we will show the sign (we can play it) but we don't have the underlying thing.

I believe that I have appeared rigid and pedantic to some. But what I am trying to do is slow down sufficiently to have the basic things solidly in hand and mind. The spontaneous flow is there already and I just have to unleash it. But if the beginning things are not also there, my playing is blurry and vague. It can be confusing to a teacher who doesn't catch what has happened and who will say "You have it already, let's move on." It is almost like having what comes after, but not having what comes before.

The problem is that musical talent creates one kind of fluid musicality. But the specific raw movements of fingers, the different way of approaching and thinking if you want to go any further in music, require time. The body and nervous system must accustom themselves to movements that they never expected to exist, to replace these for what would be there in the raw, and this must become habit through repetition. But because the other abilities are so far ahead there is an imbalance. One must wait for the time-related elements to catch up and become second nature through daily mindful repetition. Since spontaneity (and vagueness) are there at the beck and call, it must be especially mindful practice, precisely because we don't need to concentrate as much in order to produce a semblance of music. Does this make sense, btw?

[Edit: I rather like being renamed Keystone, since keystones is what it all seems to be about.]

Sorry about that, Keystone! What a goat rope this election cycle has become!

We are teaching two separate activities simultaniously - piano playing and note reading. When miaeih discusses regression, my guess is she's refering to reading skills, not playing skills. The body doesn't unlearn physical movements easily. Just witness how long it takes for a student to correct a note playing error. The body has to learn a new pattern and superimpose it over the old pattern.

When a student can play a new piece fluidly, it doesn't mean that the student can read fluidly at that level. In fact, we generally recognize that reading is generally one or two levels below playing skills. What I find problematic with transfer students is that their reading skills or four or five levels below their playing level. This suggests a teacher deficiency, not a student learning deficiency.

Does this make sense?

Oops, I meant Keystring!

It makes absolute sense. If this is happening with almost every transfer student, then it seems that there is some kind of deficiency in that area of teaching as a whole, among these teachers. If your students don't have that problem then you have an effective way of teaching it which the others would not seem to have. It's probably more tedious than what these students are used to so I imagine acceptance might be a problem unless they see it as necessary. But it would still be easier than physical remediation.

So, would you guys say that with a good foundation, there would be no way for a student to regress?

I know there are some holes to fix, sight reading definitely being one of them, and the student complains about challenges but when someone who used to play many pieces with chords tell you, I don't know how to play chords... how do you forget how to play chords?!

I've always thought of playing like riding a bike, once you know how, you don't forget. Maybe you won't play as well, maybe it will take a long time, but you still know how.

miaeih,

1) There is something you've said that I don't understand, could you please help me with this: "It's probably more tedious than what these students are used to so I imagine acceptance might be a problem unless they see it as necessary. But it would still be easier than physical remediation."

2) I don't think of remedial work as being a step backward - it's really a step forward toward results. I don't find the word remedial an insult - it simply is "applying a remedy" to a problem.

3) I think any resistance by the student is soon removed because the work together to improve does produce exciting results. How can someone be unhappy with progress and accomplishment? You are showing the student a new kind of teacher.

4) My comments: Continued observation and playing through some previous lesson materials is one way to find the "swiss cheese holes" - places that either were misunderstood, inconsistent results, or not presented at all. This allow you to bring the student to a consistent description of the level you are working on. Keep notes of what you notice while he presents songs he has "learned" before. From this list of things to do over, prioritze what needs to be reviewed, which problems in which piece showed problems. Restructure the lesson of how to fix the specific problems, but work within it's category: note name, keyboard location finding, fingering, counting, steady beat, accidentals, practice skills, technical exercises needed, 5 FP, scales, chords, arpeggios. Analysis of the piece. Memory development. Exactly what are the issues? Create a lesson plan from your list.

Look at the assignment book and check out the flow, repeats of lesson assignments, progress, what did the teacher address lessons toward? If no comments were made in the assignment book, I'd say an opportunity was missed in given instructions. Not just name of song, page number - it's not sufficient. Students need reminders of what the goal is in the piece, and input on how to practice, or which section to practice first.

This is a real opportunity to do some effective teaching and learning and to bring this student to accomplishing the task at levels 1-2-3, and then, to approach level 4.

Most of this is identifying the problem areas, having a plan to "execute", watching to feedback from the student, both in playing, comfort level, and what he is saying or doing.

It doesn't have to be painful to do this, having a great attitude will help you get the work done quickly and well.

There always seems to be something to address in transfer students. I think kids are at many levels in piano in different categories in the first 3 - 4 years. Then it comes into being that there is a well prepared, confident, independant student who surfaces. It simply takes as long as it's going to take for this to happen - time, effort, information, habits, retrieval of skills for present moment action.

Power up!

Betty

Betty, in order to prevent confusion - The quote you have attributed to miaeih are my words, so it's not part of what miaeih was thinking.

The quote is in response to something that John wrote one post up. He wrote that many transfer students come in with reading abilities far below playing abilities because of probably neglect in previous teaching, and I mused that such students would find it tedious to accept needing to do the grunge when they have already experienced fluidity by bypassing the need to read. John had also mentioned that physical remediation is more difficut than reading remediation and forms part of the comment you quoted.

However, the quote has nothing to do with miaeih's thoughts and experience so can be safely discounted.

This is not a transfer student, Betty. This is one of miaeih's own students who has progressed through three levels of method books and now suddenly cannot do them anymore.

John and I were discussing his experience with transfer students and the idea that difficulty accepting that there were holes in their previous teaching was my thought, and not miaeih's. I am sorry if any confusion was cuased by this side conversation.

Thank you keystring,

I did not realize that they were two different students, and my eyes focused on the word transfer student mentioned in the 2nd paragraph.

Zigged when I should have zagged, sorry!

Betty

Miaeih, in my case as a student when I regressed suddenly several things had happened. Mostly I had a physical regression on a different instrument which was also defectively built, so that doesn't apply.

In addition to this, for some things I had not learned what I had appeared to learn. I could sound out music so when the different levels of material were supposed to get me to gradualy learn to read music or get certain relationships in my fingers, that didn't happen. Then as I got to a higher level I could not CONSCIOUSLY do the basic things, becuase I had never consciously learned them. I heard things as full melodies and went for them, without catching structure. Thus in your example I would have been "able" to play chords, because musically I could get them as music. This showed up as I reached higher levels and couldn't wing it anymore (not that I knew I was winging it.) Ultimately it turned out that there were things at the basic level I had not grasped.

How old is the student? I've seen this happen in younger students (6-7) and also in rebellious teens (13-15). Sometimes it's student interest...if the student loses interest, she might not "want" to remember things you've taught her. Worse, it might be an issue of learning disability. I work with students from all walks of life in the public school, including several special-education students. They each have their own unique issues, and your approach to teaching them must be individualized.

Good luck!

Actually, the specific student I am thinking of when I wrote this is a transfer student. I believe each time that this student has transfered teachers this regression seems to happen or it happens before the transfer and the parents think it would be better to try a new teacher so it doesn't happen again.

Bingo! Again, I think it's very likely that this "regression" is being staged purposely for some reason. Miaeih didn't say that the student was learning disabled (which I think she might have mentioned had that been the case) and barring a stroke or something, that kind of learning disablilty would not suddenly appear.

Especially if the student has exhibited signs in the past that he/she simply isn't interested in learning piano or is being compelled to learn by parents, I think Miaeih has to consider the possibility that the regression may be a ploy to get out of the lessons.

Don't you just love transfer students!!

Well, this explains alot.

If you want to struggle through keeping this student, I would sit down with the parents to see if first if the child wants to or is being made to take piano lessons.

I probably would probably not keep a student who is regressing. Students should progress not regress.

Sounds like an issue with the family, imo.

I had a new student in October who moved across country and really missed her piano teacher.

It wasn't until I brought new music into her life, that she adjusted to me and began to have fun.

I had listened to her review work when she came, and then we got involved with Christmas and Holiday music, and back to finishing up the music she came with. By mid January she had new music "Finger Painting, Book 1 by Dennis Alexander" which allows duets with teacher. We completed the book in no time, she was delighted with everything in the book. She had variety in her life for the first time.

Now, we smile, laugh and roll eyes at each other. We have our new beginning in music and we're building memories together now. I'm glad things changed for her.

The other situation in her life is that her Dad is in Iraq. I think separation was a big issue she was working through.

You have to consider what is ticking within them at their ground zero. And, as long as the student shows up for lessons, I'd want to keep teaching them - and especially because of the regression problem. It's a good idea if they exit, that you extend to them the thought of returning to piano lessons sometime in the future, either with you, or with a new teacher. The "Open Door" policy!

Betty

Just to be clear I think miaeah's student has transfered teachers quite a few times, not just once.

As a returning student who went for many years without touching any sort of keyboard, the 1st thing I did was play a few chords. I've forgotten many many many things that I'm re-learning, but if they can't play chords it's not because they've forgot, it's because they never could or don't want to.

Interesting you should say that. It is a well documented that children regress at the change to secondary school. My guess is that it's a case of having to fill in the requirements of the new regime, at the loss of much that was gained in the old. The objective criteria that appear to show primary to secondary do match is full of holes. Our youngsters fall through them.

I think it is much less complicated. Of course it's possible for a student to regress. If for whatever reason they stop practicing they will regress. You have heard the expression 'use it or lose it' right?

This is the kind of situation where this might happen:

A student begins working through method books. If they are quite intelligent then book 1 will be a breeze even with little practice. Book 2 is a little more challenging but they get through with each piece taking maybe 2-3 weeks to complete. In book 3 the going gets tough. Without regular practice they start to struggle. They become frustrated and even less motivated. Now each piece is taking several weeks and is often not completed to a satisfactory standard. In desperation the teacher is inclined to move them on rather than keep flogging the same piece week after week. The trouble is that the next piece is more difficult than the last so it gets worse. This could continue for months or maybe even more where the student never really gets to grips with any of their pieces. The teacher eventually dumps them or the student (or parent) decides to transfer. The new teacher recognises that the pieces they are working on are too difficult. By now they will have forgot most of what they learned in book 2 so the chances are that their actual level is right back in book 1. Imagine how it will feel to be told that you must go back to book 1 when you passed that years ago?

This is why I am not a fan of method books. Assigning a level to a piece creates the impression that anything below that level is pointless and even insulting and certainly could not be of any benefit. Even when working towards graded exams I will usually use pieces from alternative lists which are in different books so that it does not say 'grade 5' etc.

Your right, method books have as many disadvantages as advantages. By the way, how are the Tamworth two doing? Do you ever visit them?

Various thoughts in regards to what I am reading:

- method books: These are books in which the skills and concepts to be learned in a particular order are organized by someone else by providing material that addresses them. As such I imagine that they function a bit like text books. Now, when I teach academic subjects, I begin with the knowledge of what my student must learn and I am grateful if I have a source that will allow my students to practice what I taught. But I, not the book, does the teaching. A text book is a tool. So is a grocery store which sells oranges in three's when I teach multiplication.

It is possible that some teachers allow the method book to do the teaching for them, hoping that the right concepts will filter in through the doing of the pieces and studies alone without actively teaching these concepts. A student who transfers a number of times having had such teachers would not have acquired those concepts.

The inheriting teacher, hopefully, would know which concepts and skills are usually built in which order and are essential, and I imagine would have to test specifically for those skills. One of the things I've become aware of which is taught on piano, for example, is orientation on the keyboard: mapping it out, moving about in the pattern of circle of fifths, awareness of black key patterns, pattern of note names that go with this, intervalic movement. What if a student has managed to get to book three having played everything "somehow", but has no idea about 2+3 black keys, the role of the middle note of a chord determining major and minor, and similar? It is quite possible to play the piano in a state of cluelesness and even play fancy pieces by rote imitation. There would have to be a way to test out these areas of cluelesness, and then a planned way to fill in those holes. I believe that Betty has said something to that effect.

Secondly there is cause and effect, chicken and egg. The child has had a lot of teachers and it is evident that at this point some teachers on this board are blaming the family for an attitude problem: teacher hoppers - don't touch. A teacher hopper will not get anywhere because that behaviour cannot give results, plus that behaviour may mean that a student is not ready to address the problem but expects all problems are due to the teacher who must do the work instead of the student.

But let's look at an alternate possibility. The first teacher did not teach this student properly, but used a method book to do the teaching for him. Thus the student did not acquire the skills and knowledge that will support him. He has nothing to draw on. Secondly the student has not been taught the attitude and approach to learning music. He literally does not know how to approach the task of learning, or approaching a piece for that matter. In fact, he has been "taught" a rotten approach: slog through the book and each piece ramming it through somehow, end to end, measure 1 to measure 30.

This student then goes on to a second teacher who very possibly is method-dependent instead of method-using also. OR the second teacher does not realize this has gone on, and so seeing that the student by now is in method 2, hauls out her own method 2, maybe does teach some concepts, but does not realize that the core concepts that these are based on are not there. The student knows how to slog through pieces "somehow" and so the fact that the student is producing "somehow" induces the teacher to also believe the student knows how to approach his studies. As the work accelerates, the student falls apart again. This teacher is incapable of helping the struggling student, and so the parents seek a different teacher. You end up with a "teacher hopper".

That cycle has to be stopped. The student and parents must be lifted out of this perpetual cluelesness: the student in regards to what it means to learn music (which he has been mis-taught) and the parents in regards to what lessons and learning means. I'm afraid that this also means that they have to find out at least in part what has been going on, that their child has been mis-taught, so that they will be open to the hard work and their support that will have to go into rectifying things. The child will have to learn a new way of approaching things, and new things are uncomfortable.

I assume that it would take a very skilled and knowledgeable teacher to turn around this situation, because it is always easier to build a house, than to fix a house with a dubious base. Such a teacher would have given her own students a good foundation from the start, so that everything runs smoothly both in terms of their technical and cognitive process, but also attitude because they will have learned how to learn. It would be frustrating to undo the damage of a student whose foundations are a mess, and who might resist such teaching since he has been led to believe that the "easier" "instant" automatic and unaware model is the real thing.

Thus such a student can be left in the dark, bounced around a while longer, and end up quitting music and never realizing that it could have been possible. What a dismal prospect. The FIRST teacher and the FIRST things taught are the most important.

We also have to acknowledge different levels of personal objectives and energy invested. That student may never become a concert pianist, but still may get to some worthwhile personal achievement. Anyone deliberately aiming, or re-aiming for such realistic objectives ?

Whatever the objectives, ROMagister, if certain basic things are not in place, everything is awkward. If they are there, everything that was awkward, even advanced things, fall into place.

Chris, when dealing with transfer students who need to return to a lower level, I generally explain that since they've been away from lessons for a bit, review of former material is wise, and something everyone does, and as they are obviously good students, I expect that they will move very quickly through it. I use a method set for this which is different than what the student used originally, and I also tell them not to get hung up on the level number, since level 1 in one set may well be a level 3 in another. Surprizingly, most students are actually okay with this and we get through the review rather quickly in most cases. Often, I make a game of it, to see what the student can remember, when it's fun recall rather than a dull listing of facts.