I came across an article that got me thinking about my teaching philosophy – “The Educational Value of Creative Disobedience” by Andrea Kuszewski.  The article explores research and personal experience about the value of a creative, exploratory approach to learning as opposed to a linear, rote approach.  According to Kuszewski, studies have found that

too much direct instruction—showing a child what to do, rather than letting him figure out the solution himself—can severely affect his ability and/or instinct to independently and creatively solve problems, or to explore multiple potential solutions.

It got me thinking about how I can better create an atmosphere of creative problem-solving in clarinet lessons.  It is so easy, especially as someone with a doctorate in clarinet, to sit there and point out problems and tell students the solutions.  It makes me feel smart, it’s a quick solution, and often the student prefers that approach because they are used to being treated that way in a classroom — the teacher teaches, the students learn, memorize, repeat.

But when I am at my best as a teacher (when I’ve had enough sleep and/or caffeine and haven’t just taught fifteen lessons) and the student is receptive, I push myself to take the path that is more challenging for both of us, but results in deeper learning.  Instead of “You missed the B-flat,” I might ask a series of questions: “Did that sound right to you?  What note sounded wrong?  Why?  What can you do to fix it?”  I usually find that the student can self-correct, and in a way that is much more memorable to them and that they can recreate when practicing on their own.  It also opens up a dialog that allows the students to share ideas that I wouldn’t have thought of — and also to come up with ideas that are flat out wrong.  But according to the article, that’s a good thing:

In this age of innovation, even more important than being an effective problem solver, is being a problem finder. It’s one thing to look at a problem and be able to generate a solution; it is another thing to be able to look at an ambiguous situation, and decide if there is a problem that needs to be solved. That’s a skill that isn’t really targeted by traditional teaching methods, and in fact, it is often discouraged. In order to teach problem finding, more creative methods must be utilized. Rule-breaking , to an extent, should be tolerated and encouraged, and yes—even taught.

Teaching how and when to break rules and take creative risks isn’t a neat and clean process—it can get a little messy, and errors will be made. But we should be aware of this from the beginning and reward smart risk-taking, even if it leads to an error.

Our present economy values creative professionals (programmers, designers, marketing experts) very highly, but our education system is set up to place more importance on rote learning and standardized tests than developing creative problem-solving.  And as the article points out, students taught with an emphasis on creative problem-solving usually do better on standardized tests anyway!  So as a teacher in the arts, I feel especially responsible to lead my students through an exploratory learning process in which they are active participants.  After all, they might not get it anywhere else.

It’s hard, in a half-hour lesson, to take the time to ask open-ended questions, or help a student figure out a rhythm instead of just playing it for them.  But so, so worth it in the long run.