The one-to-one teaching relationship is reported as being highly significant for young musicians (Manturzewska, 1990). In a study of the lifetime development of 165 Polish musicians (35 internationally acclaimed musicians, and 130 ‘normal’ musicians), Manturzewska found that the personality, musical competence, and personal culture of the tertiary one-to-one teacher was formative, and influenced the entire future approach of the student. Further research into the perceptions of students and their teachers found that the one-to-one model was universally accepted as the ideal way to learn a musical instrument to an expert level (Carey & Grant, 2015; Gaunt, 2008, 2010; Gaunt et al., 2012; Mills, 2002). It also served as a powerful role model for teaching, with students tending to adopt their teacher’s pedagogical style and continue it in their own work (Daniel & Parkes, 2015).
More recent studies have looked at the aims and outcomes of one-to-one teaching. Gaunt et al. (2012) reported on data from a longitudinal study consisting of surveys and interviews exploring
51
the experience of students at a tertiary music institution in the UK. They explored the forms one- to-one tuition might take within the context of this institution, including both teacher and student views of what is expected in this model of teaching. They found high levels of variation within expectations and experience of both teachers and students, a result which echoes other studies (e.g. Carey & Grant, 2015). Students particularly valued the potential for the one-to-one model to be tailored to their individual needs. Both parties cited the importance of autonomous learning; however, when asked what they expected and wanted from one-to-one teachers, students tended to describe modes of teaching focused on demonstration and being told what they needed to do. In addition, teachers often engaged in this type of instruction.
Reporting on the same study, Gaunt (2010) stated that among 20 students studying at a UK institution, those learning from more than one teacher showed greater autonomy than those with only one teacher. The students reported no sense of conflict when learning from multiple teachers, but rather engaged in higher levels of critical thinking. Wöllner & Ginsborg (2011) found similar results in their study of the perceptions of team teaching among students and teachers at a conservatoire. They conducted three questionnaire studies with three different departments (Strings, Vocal and Opera studies, and Wind, Brass and Percussion), with an overall cohort of 129 students and 13 teachers. Perceptions of team teaching were mainly positive across all three departments, particularly with regard to hearing many different ideas and having to decide which was most appropriate. These results suggest that one-to-one teaching may accommodate students in relinquishing responsibility for learning and/or decision-making to their teachers. Team teaching may force students to choose between ideas and approaches, potentially encouraging them to develop an independent and autonomous stance.
Most studies on one-to-one music teaching utilised interview and focus group methodologies. They contain important data on philosophies, perceptions, and experiences of the one-to-one
52
teaching model; however, they did not capture what actually happened during lessons. The principal reason cited for not gathering data during lessons was reluctance on the part of teachers to participate in research which looked behind the “closed door” of the teaching studio (Carey, 2008; Gaunt, 2008, 2011). A study by Burwell (2005) provides an exception. She investigated teacher approaches to tertiary instrumental learning, and, in addition to interviews, recorded 67 individual lessons and 10 group lessons, with 19 teachers. In common with other researchers (e.g. Burland, 2005; Gaunt, 2010; Gaunt et al., 2012), she found that autonomy was frequently cited as a learning goal; however, she also found that actual teacher behaviour did not always foster it effectively.
Burwell (2005) identified questioning as a point at which the development of autonomy was often sacrificed. Teachers frequently posed rhetorical questions, or questions which required no response from students. When they did pose exploratory questions, they often did not wait for a student response, and provided an answer themselves. Overall, although teachers were aware that an approach based on exploratory questioning was more conducive to developing autonomy, they often fell back on a prescriptive teaching style, which was focused on transmitting information. Burwell suggested that this tendency may be a product of expediency, since time for achieving mastery of repertoire was limited, and also to underlying assumptions that the ideas of the master-teacher are superior to those of the student. In addition, she noted that some students did not respond well to expectations that they should answer questions and contribute opinions, reflecting their learning style.
The above studies agree that the one-to-one teaching model is a powerful learning tool, but that it may have unintended effects on student learning and behaviour. In particular, results of these studies suggest that the one-to-one model is often less effective at developing student autonomy and active learning than teachers would hope. Limited encouragement of autonomy in students
53
both in and outside of music has been associated with over-control during teaching, caused by factors such as time pressures and teacher epistemic beliefs (Burwell, 2005; Gill et al., 2004; Reeve, 2009). In music, failing to support the development of autonomy in students can be equated with failing to prepare students for the life of auditions, diverse performance work, self- management, and teaching required of many professional musicians (Bennett, 2007; Burland, 2005; Burland & Davidson, 2004; Creech, Papageorgi, Duffy, Morton, Haddon, et al., 2008; Jørgensen, 2000). The findings that student autonomy was supported by team teaching (Gaunt, 2010; Wöllner & Ginsborg, 2011) and by exploratory questioning which carried an expectation of student input (Burwell, 2005) point to the conclusion that students benefit from an environment in which their contributions are expected, necessary, and valuable.