Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Skipping a method book level

I'll be asking a few questions in the coming weeks on planning for various students.

I have one student who finished Succeeding at the Piano Level 1 last year (and the prep level the year before). The last half of the book was actually fairly easy for this student. At the end of last year I gave her the RCM Prep B book, thinking to start it in September, but she listened to the CD, and made a very good start at learning Pop Goes the Weasel, and we also did Sneaky Sam.

The student has done Kodaly and has sung in a childrens' choir for a few years as well, so her general music knowledge is fairly good.


The next book in the series is 2A, which the official description of the book says:
Grade 2A includes new concepts such as: eighth notes; Major and minor five-finger patterns and triads in C, G, D, and A; the damper pedal; cross-hand arpeggio; key signature; low F in the Bass Clef; first and second endings; ritardando; E above Middle C in the Bass Clef; the sonatina; ostinato patterns; A minor; fermata; a tempo; and the dotted quarter note. The multi-key reading approach is continued in combination with traditional note reading and intervallic reading, and technique is completely integrated in the Lesson Book, so students continue to review the same principles set forth right from the start.


I don't see the point in 5-finger patterns and have already taught her 1 octave scales (C and G). I'm not sure how she is at dotted rhythms.

The question is, is there any harm in skipping 2A altogether? 2B then goes into 6ths, octave scales, etc. If she has a problem with rhythm, I'm thinking to supplement with a few other pieces to get the dotted quarters and eighth notes down.

In general I'm just a little concerned with the slow progress of some of these method books. I'll start another thread for that topic though!

Do you do transposition with your students?

I use 5-finger patterns to teach major/minor triads. Also, students need some experience playing in that narrow strip of white key between black keys. (F# minor, for example)

Just the little bit in the methods to play something in G or C, or D, A position instead of the position that is written in the music. Haven't reached any minor keys yet.
I've taught the C and G major scale. I have them play the G major scale without telling them about the F#, and have them discover it doesn't quite sound right. Then I show them the pattern of whole and half steps. Same for triads.

I generally don't let my kids skip ahead. Skipping a level of a lesson book makes it too easy to miss something important that may be more difficult to teach later on. If this level is too easy for them, they will fly through it and be on to the next level in no time!

I agree. And you can always supplement with other music to keep it interesting.

To me, the problem is not skipping a level in the method books. I normally don't skip any level at this stage in the student's development. My issue is at what level (of method book) do I transition the kid to "normal" repertoire.

I routinely get transfer students who either got transitioned too early or never used a method book to begin with, and then I had to drag them back into the world of steps and skips. And then I have to keep these kids in the method books even longer, till Book 5 (Piano Adventures and Hal Leonard) or Book 6 (Alfred Premier). I have three students right now who finished all 6 levels of Alfred Premier and then transitioned to regular repertoire, and all three are doing spectacularly well.

Two questions: First, when you say "Book 5 Piano Adventures" do you specifically mean "Level 5"?

Second, what do you mean by "regular repertoire"? While in Level 4 I basically went through Developing Artist Book 2, that had plenty of Early Intermediate pieces in it.

Thanks...

Yes.


By "regular repertoire," I mean your typical anthology of pieces without instructions in them, or an entire book like Burgmuller Op. 100 or Kabalevsky Op. 39. Many method books incorporate early intermediate pieces in their Lesson or Performance books, but a regular anthology it is not.

Some students benefit from having a structure and preset pacing, and the method books support students with extra instruction and, in some cases, preparatory exercises.

OK, thanks.

I'm currently starting Faber Developing Artist Book 3, and that book seems to not quite meet your definition of regular repertoire. I would like at some point in the future to spend time on a single anthology, like Schumann's Album for The Young, at least the first part which should be doable for me.

Actually, I think the Faber Developing Artist series qualifies for what AZN was referring to. These are classic piano pieces used in teaching students.

You are correct. I do use those books for some students.

I think this is a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway. How do you fast-track through the level? Do all the pieces and/or only spend a week on each and/or assign more pieces in a week or it depends?

The way I see it, the purpose of a method book is to introduce a student to musical concepts to be prepared for music outside of the methods. If you know the student has already learned all the musical concepts in the book, you would still go through the whole book?

When we were going through method books, she got to the end of 2B in a year or less and she was 4 years old.

We did all the books. I think some pieces were not assigned since she sight read them well enough during lesson.

She still loves to play pieces from her first anthology book but almost never touches her old method books. Nonetheless, I don't think the method book year was a waste of time. It had to be done.

It's not really "fast-track," per se. Some students naturally advance faster than others. Do I need to share with you the horror story of how some kids spend more than A YEAR in level 2A? The trick is to allow each student to go at his/her own pace, and you'll see how some kids can sprint, while others crawl, and others just sit there lifeless.

I'd say about 60% of the time a piece does not need to be polished (or even close to being polished); you can confidently move on to the next piece. There is usually one specific item/concept being taught in the piece, and if the student has mastered it well enough then it's okay to move on. Good method book series usually re-visit the same concepts later in the book, so the student has ample opportunity to review.


I don't see how this is even possible, unless you go out of order and teach concepts randomly.

This is an interesting comment. I've always felt that each piece in my method books had a specific skill to either learn or re-visit, and once I had demonstrated that skill to my teacher we moved on.

One interesting thing that is starting to happen (as I reach my 3-year anniversary of lessons) is that my teacher is becoming even more picky than in the past. The idea of "that's good enough for now" is being slowly replaced by "every nuance of this piece must be mastered before we can move on". Quite frankly it's a bit frustrating to me, but I guess that's the way it goes.

However we trust our teacher 1000%, so there you have it...

I had a transfer student who last year made it through half of 2A. Part of that was because she didn't get in much practicing. Part of it too was that in my opinion, the previous teacher moved on too quickly from each piece, so that none of the pieces were polished. My pedagogy professor really did expect complete mastery of every piece in the book, and I started from that principle. Occasionally I'll move on if they missed something in practice (say, dynamics), and they can put them in during the lesson. So probably do move more slowly than you.


I'm not sure what you are questioning. You don't see how what is possible? That the student has learned the musical concepts already? If that's the case, it is because Kodaly classes taught her rhythms, solfege (including whole and half steps in a major scale), and her choir is a fairly advanced children's choir that has each student do theory homework.

I still would go through it and just call it review. Reviewing and reinforcing never hurts, as long as you do eventually move on to new material.

A few quick thoughts:

1. Mastery of 4 bars? With 3 notes? I'm not sure that there's anything worth mastering and I find that it's much better to give them some "meat and bones" to work on their posture, hand position, wrist position, fingering, etc... :-/

2. Can't the kids take in more than one subject/piece of information at a time?

As I said some very quick thoughts...

Adding to your quick thoughts:

The number one problem I have with students who come from other teachers is that they are forced to "over-study" pieces to the extent that they memorize and "master" a few things but can't read worth spit.

I'd far rather have a student playing a whole number of things NOW with "reasonable" mastery but learning quickly and easily and always moving on to new things.

I believe in reviewing and fully mastering things that are older and already in the hands LATER, which means working on different levels of "polishing" at the same time.

Too few future musicians are prepared to be quick learners and flexible enough to get work as players who can do just about everything, and only those players are likely to survive as professional musicians.

I agree. In the beginning, it is very important that the student be exposed to as much music as is reasonably possible. Sometimes it takes a while to "master" an idea, often circling back to it. Learning is not linear.

However, this must also be balanced with making sure the student feels a sense of accomplishment/progress (if they are practicing), and that with certain pieces along the way - the ones they like the best - you do develop them to a level of mastery. But making every piece be completely perfect before moving on is a waste and a drag for everyone involved.