t MTNA's first Pedagogy Saturday event held in Dallas on April 5, 1997, I participated in a panel discussion which focused on concerns related to the training of studio and small-group teachers. Our panel was asked to address the following question: "What are the key points (for the supervising teacher) to note when charged with the responsibility of observing a lesson being taught (by an intern teacher)?" For my own presentation, my twenty-five-plus years of experience supervising and observing lessons of intern teachers enrolled in the collegiate pedagogy programs with which I had been associated made it quite easy to generalize about what key points I thought should form the basis for such lesson observations and evaluations.

When I recently revisited the summary article of our panel's discussion of this subject that appeared in the Proceedings from Pedagogy Saturday I, I was reminded that although all of these points are appropriate as a means for evaluating teachers-in-training, they are equally valid as criteria for evaluating teaching done by any teacher ­ whether beginning or experienced. Below are a few of the points I presented on the panel. (In some instances, they have been reworded and enlarged upon a bit in order to be more clearly applicable to all of us who strive for ever-increasing success in our day-to-day encounters with our students.)

How much lesson time is spent hearing and making music as opposed to just talking about it?
It is so easy to fall into the trap of "lecturing" ("talking at") students rather than creating lesson situations in which they can experience the points being made. For one example, suppose that a student's performance needs more dynamic contrast. Do we just talk about this-("You need to play louder here; play softer there; make a much bigger crescendo here, etc.")? Or do we help the student explore what the composer is trying to communicate via the dynamics, and illustrate the points within the musical context of the piece so that he or she can actually hear an acceptable model for the desired dynamic contrasts? (Over the years, I've discovered that it's not the sound of my VOICE, but rather, the sound of the MUSIC itself that best inspires, motivates, and instructs.)

How successfully does the teacher prepare the student for new things that will appear in the coming week's assignment?
For instance, suppose that a first-year student is assigned a new piece whose ending contains a hands-together part that could easily present a coordination problem. At the lesson, does the teacher effectively address this potential problem so that the student experiences success with the spot before leaving the lesson? And is the student clear about the practice steps that he/she did at the lesson so that the steps can continue to be done at home in order to maintain ease with that spot's execution?

How successful is the teacher in bringing about obvious changes in the repertoire heard at the lesson?
For example, suppose that a student plays a piece accurately but with no expression. Does the teacher succeed in helping the student bring the piece to life musically? Or if there are other kinds of problems, are these successfully resolved? Is it obvious to the student that the piece has dramatically improved as a result of what was done with it at the lesson, and is he/she aware of the practice steps to use at home in order to ensure continuing progress?

When working on pieces, does the teacher try to make too many points rather than zeroing in on just one or two and really making them?
For instance, let's suppose that in one piece, a major area needing improvement is its pedaling. Is the effectiveness of the teacher's strategy in helping the student deal with this issue diluted by also trying to improve the piece's dynamics, AND its phrasing, AND the student's hand position, AND the crispness of the staccatos, etc.? Granted, it is sometimes hard for us to purposely "not see" and/or "not hear" things that obviously need to be addressed. Still, isn't it better to make just one or two points with a piece and really make them than to muddy the water by confronting students with so many things to remember and "fix" that they don't really experience success with any of them? Perhaps we need to keep reminding ourselves that we don't have to address every issue in every piece in every lesson. There's always next week!

Does the teacher get too refined too soon?
For one illustration, suppose a teacher spends a great deal of time working on how to artistically shape phrase endings in a piece when it's obvious that the student is still struggling with accuracy-just being able to play the correct notes, rhythm, and fingering. Maybe "work on phrasing" was listed in today's lesson plan, but in the actuality of the lesson, with this particular piece, the student needs help with how to achieve accuracy, not artistic phrasing!

How effectively does the teacher structure the lesson content and distribution of lesson time?
Are activities requiring the most thought placed early in the lesson before the student begins to tire and lose focus? Are there enough changes of pace to retain student concentration and interest? Is time budgeted wisely so that we don't spend so much of it on just one or two things that we run out of it without being able to address other equally important issues?

What is the quality of the lesson environment and the student/teacher relationship?
Does the teacher create and maintain a positive environment as well as a high energy level and momentum? Do we project genuine enthusiasm for both the student and the music being studied? Is the student adequately rewarded with praise whenever it is deserved? Do we involve students in active lesson participation by asking them questions, having them mark the music themselves, having them sometimes select the next piece to be played, allowing them to sometimes select the new piece to be begun, asking them to suggest the needed practice steps, etc.? In other words, do we maintain a healthy balance between a student-centered and a teacher-centered lesson? Finally, are we sensitive to how our students are reacting to our comments and suggestions? And are we aware of their general attitude about the lesson itself, as well as about the assigned music and practice goals?

Final questions to ask ourselves as the student leaves the lesson:

• Did the student leave today's lesson having experienced a lot of music-making beyond the notes, as well as the fun of discovery?
• Did he/she leave with a clear idea of the coming week's goals and how to practice to achieve them? And above all,
• Did the student leave the lesson feeling successful?

In years past when I observed the teaching of interns, we used all of the above issues and questions to evaluate their teaching. Today, I find myself continuing to use these same criteria as the basis for evaluating my own teaching. Although the above is all pretty basic, still, I believe that it is the backbone for effective teaching by any teacher at any level.

Special thanks to MTNA for allowing the use of material from The Proceedings from Pedagogy Saturday I (pp. 81-82). This journal as well as the proceedings from Pedagogy Saturday 2-5 are available through the MTNA Headquarters, 441 Vine St., Suite 505, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2811. For additional information, contact Marcie Lindsey, Director of Communications (888) 512-5278, ext. 234. (mlindsey@mtna.org)

About Our Cover Picture

 Editor George Litterst asks Virginia Campbell, Jane Hastay, and Amy Rose Immerman to address the question, "Do you accept a digital piano as a substitute for an acoustic piano?"