MAP OR SATNAV? - Paul Harris (Music Teacher, June 2012) - Shortened

Do you prefer driving with maps or with a satnav? To be honest, I usually prefer a satnav. When I'm en route for some distant (and often) unknown destination, it saves me preparation time and gets me there. But I don't always like the fact that I neither know where I am (in relation to where I was when I began the journey) or how exactly I managed to get there.
It seems to me that some teachers use maps when they teach and others use the satnav approach - the kind of teaching which, should, really, be saved up for those moments when a clever shortcut is the only way. It is ultimately destructive. Yes, it may yield speedy results, but the connections haven't been made. It's learning without understanding, and often, pupils taught repeatedly like this will eventually give up. Because they 'don't get' where they are. They are lost.
With the map, on the other hand, we can really see where we are. We can see how each destination (be it technical, musical or theoretical) connects to what we already know, and we can see how it connects to the world of music in general.
Let's go back to route maps for a moment. We can still take short cuts, but with the map the shortcuts are MEANINGFUL; we still know where we are. and we can recognize it's the church, say, from whichever direction we happen to be coming, we know what's going to be around the corner, even if we can't see it. When we teach using the map, our pupils will know where they are.
Why is it that pupils who can play a particular rhythm in their pieces often stumble over the same rhythm in a sight-reading context? It's usually because they've got there via satnav; they don't really UNDERSTAND the rhythm. The map approach is probably going to take longer to teach, but the rewards will be considerable.
There is, of course, the satnav way to teach a rhythm. We simply play or sing and say 'this is how it goes.' And teachers often feel that's enough; not seeming to mind that when the same rhythm appears in another piece, it has to be retaught. It's not a great way forward.
So, to the map approach. Set the scene by establishing a really strong pulse. Then, like learning a language, we need to reinforce it aurally until it feels  (and sounds) comfortable and natural. This physical stage is important - take time over it. We now move on to the notation, and here the map approach really comes into its own. We make connections with 'theory' - which means explaining the rhythm carefully. Pupils need to see rhythm in different contexts and come at it from different directions. And as we move forward, we make further connections with aural work, search for examples in other pieces, apply what we've learned to scales and arpeggios, and improvise and compose using it. It's Simultaneous Learning in action. Our pupils are less likely to get lost. This is thorough, responsible and, ultimately, TIME-SAVING teaching.