Duke, R. A., & Simmons, A. L. (2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (170), 7-19
The reading this week discusses what it takes for a studio teacher to be a good teacher. It is formatted like a lab report and uses testing to prove its thesis. This reading was really interesting because it uses real life examples of teachers who have shown that what they do is successful. I thought it was also interesting to see how so many teachers use the same methods to teach music, having them play a passage over and over again until it reaches a standard. I also disagree with this slightly because I question the efficiency of this method. If you were to practice the same thing over and over again, you might also make them memorize the wrong way to do it. I think the proper way to do it is to break it down to its fundamental rather than repeating a passage over and over again. Nothing in this article surprised me because this article discusses facts about a teacher teaching a lesson. Since this article is written like a lab report, it is safe to assume that most of things stated are true, also through personal experience can I say this is true. This article lacks an argument and does not surprise me at all. What frustrates me in this article is how how some of the teachers approach teaching their students. Using only repetition does not help them learn, they must break it down and slow buildup to it. Something I would like to ask the author is the purpose of this article. They state that it is to help find the right way to teach a studio lesson, but all these facts would have been taught or passed down by the students very own teacher. The article itself lacks a strong thesis, and is hardly an argument. The article is only giving the readers facts.
Comments