I found the article to be a very interesting and eye-opening read: it raised several issues and challenges inherent in studio teaching which I had never considered. Upon reflection of my own experiences with studio teaching, I ultimately agreed with the article and the concerns it raises.

           My foundational music education was gained in a private lesson environment. I began taking piano lessons when I was 6 from a family friend who was just beginning to explore teaching music. In contrast to the article, in my experience I was not being trained to be a performer nor was there a push to groom me into performance stream. There is a wide range of what passes as “private studio” lessons and I would argue that the focus of studio teaching in institutions (such as RCM) and Universities is completely different from that of grass roots / local private studios that often teach young children. I think this is an important distinction which is not made clear in the article. The RCM piano levels were used as the structure for my education, which I advanced through year-to-year, but I did not pay for actual examinations until I was at a high level. I also think this parallels what Professor Chiles was pointing out: that pedagogies can be good ways to produce longer term goal points. I believe that doing RCM provided me a framework and helped me make steadfast progress in piano. However, I do agree with the argument made in the article that private studio lessons perpetuate a hierarchical model of musicianship which maintain elitist and culturally limited music education. 

       One point in the article to which I related was that there is a limited amount of knowledge a student can attain when studying under a single teacher. In middle school, my piano teacher notified my parents that she was no longer willing to teach me. I believe this was because my level of playing was very similar to her own and, more importantly perhaps, my level of ambition was greater than hers. In the article, the author argues that a significant issue is that studio teachers are often performers first – they have no instruction and likely no experience with teaching, let alone any knowledge of differentiation, learning styles, or a philosophical approach to pedagogy. Moreso, they can only instruct on what they personally know: they plan their lessons in isolation and are limited in ways to approach or apply techniques when teaching students. In his presentation, Chiles contents that he prefers peer learning and masterclasses as they are opportunities to perform and get feedback from people other than the studio teacher. This was also stressed in the article, and I think it solves the problem of the limited amount of knowledge, when you get commentary from other people.

           One thing that, Chiles said, to which I did not relate in my own lessons, was the importance of structuring lessons to the minute. My piano teacher in high school would always ask me what piece I thought we should look at next, rather than having a plan about what we would work on. This meant that there was a flexibility to the lessons, and that I had independence in my own learning. I think that this helped me develop an ear for knowing what repertoire needed work, and similarly prioritizing what I needed to practice.

           Once again, I found that I was constantly making connections with the assigned article (Isolation in Studio Music Teaching), my own experiences, and other articles or presentations we studied throughout the course. I think this gives me a broader perspective on the complications and importance of music teaching, and helps me shape how I hope to teach in the future.