Content uploaded by David Barton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Barton on Sep 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The autonomy of private instrumental teachers: its effect on valid
knowledge construction, curriculum design, and quality of
teaching and learning
David Charles Michael Barton
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Royal College of Music,
London, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).
April 2019
i
Abstract
This research aims to open doors into the world of private instrumental teaching. As well
as examining the varied nature of the profession and the work private teachers undertake,
it seeks to uncover more about who private teachers are and the way they view that work
which they carry out. Notably, in view of their position outside of institutional frameworks,
the research seeks to understand the factors which influence what and how private
teachers teach, and in particular, the way they perceive pupil input.
Despite the widespread and important role private instrumental teachers play within the
music education sector, they inhabit a position which has often been described as
isolated; their work taking place behind closed doors. Whilst the nature of one-to-one
instrumental teaching has been examined in a variety of contexts, notably higher
education, private teachers occupy an almost unique position, operating outside of
institutional control. Private teachers have previously been seen as difficult to reach, and
researchers have voiced concerns that research into private teaching may be seen as an
invasion of teachers’ privacy.
From a social constructivist position, and situated within an interpretivist paradigm, I
conducted three unstructured interviews with private teachers. These provided the
foundation for research which was then expanded to include an online survey of private
teachers which received 486 responses. Using an iterative approach, ensuring constant
dialogue between data gathered and existing literature, interview and survey data were
thematically coded and analysed, and key themes identified.
Whilst private teachers were committed to the work they undertook, responses suggest
they were often uncritical in their practice. The dataset indicates an emerging dichotomy
between the autonomy private teachers possess and their ability to manage that freedom,
leading to communities of practice which do not function at as high a level as they might.
This research makes a valuable contribution to an under-researched area of music
education, highlighting a number of implications for practice. At a time when state-funded
music provision is under threat, it is essential that key stakeholders better-understand the
role private teachers play as part of the wider music education profession.
ii
Acknowledgements
The undertaking of this research and writing up of this thesis would not have been
possible without the unstinting support, encouragement and belief of so many people.
The greatest ‘thank you’ of all must go to my supervisor, Dr Jennie Henley, for it was she,
who, early in 2013, planted the seed and said, “You really need to do a PhD”. Her support,
feedback, encouragement and belief that I could actually pull this off, was unfailing. She
has patiently guided me, cajoled where necessary, put up with my insecurities, and fielded
what must have often seemed like an unending flow of questions. For that, I shall be
forever grateful.
Thank you to those colleagues at the Royal College of Music, London, who have also, at
various times, read my work, offered feedback, shown interest in my research, and
supported me on the PhD journey, notably: Dr Natasha Loges, Dr Ingrid Pearson, Dr
Rosie Perkins, Dr Jessica Pitt and Dr Mary Stakelum.
Thank you also to those colleagues from other institutions who have also offered their
support, time, feedback, ideas, advice and encouragement, notably: Pauline Black
(University of Aberdeen), Dr Anna Bull (University of Portsmouth), Dr Ally Daubney
(University of Sussex) and Dr Lauren Redhead (Canterbury Christ Church University).
A special ‘thank you’ to Rachel Shirley, who, as well as being a fabulous friend, has also
offered her unfailing support and encouragement every step of the way. She has, without
complaint, listened to my (often) mad ideas, always been willing to read hastily put-
together drafts, and at the points where I was ready to give up, has, where required, been
suitably and necessarily fierce with me. A huge thank you also, to Ruth and Nic Carlyle
who have given so much time to meticulously proof-read the text of this thesis.
So many friends, colleagues and family members have supported and encouraged me in
my research, all far too numerous to list here, but rest-assured, I have valued every single
one of you. Finally, I offer my thanks to all my own pupils, their parents and families, who
have shown continued interest, understanding and support throughout the past six years.
***
The 4th and 5th years of this PhD research were part-supported by an RCM Doctoral
School Bursary, supported respectively by a Douglas and Hilda Simmons Award, and a
Baring Foundation Award.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
1. Introduction and Background to the Study .......................................................................... 1
1.1 Private teaching in context ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 Research questions and rationale ................................................................................ 6
1.3 Background to the study ............................................................................................... 8
1.4 Presentation of thesis chapters .................................................................................. 12
2. Research Design and Methodology .................................................................................... 13
2.1 Research design and approach .................................................................................. 13
2.2 Phase one ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Interview design and construction .............................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 20
2.2.3 Overall approach to coding, and phase one coding and analysis .............................. 21
2.3 Phase two ..................................................................................................................... 26
2.3.1 Survey design and construction ................................................................................. 26
2.3.2 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 30
2.3.3 Pilot survey ................................................................................................................ 31
2.3.4 Coding and analysis of the pilot survey ..................................................................... 32
2.3.5 Main survey ................................................................................................................ 32
2.3.6 Phase two coding and analysis .................................................................................. 33
3. Phase One: Interviews .......................................................................................................... 40
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.1 Teacher A .................................................................................................................. 41
3.1.2 Teacher B .................................................................................................................. 41
3.1.3 Teacher C .................................................................................................................. 41
3.2 Values, beliefs and motivations of private teachers ................................................. 42
3.2.1 Career choice ............................................................................................................. 42
3.2.2 Enjoyment of teaching and the varied nature of the profession ................................. 43
3.2.3 The role of teachers in ‘making a difference’ ............................................................. 44
3.2.4 Primary reasons for their decision to teach privately ................................................. 44
3.2.5 The ability to choose who to teach when teaching privately ...................................... 45
3.2.6 Logistical and financial considerations affecting private teachers’ decisions ............. 46
3.2.7 Business autonomy in private teaching ..................................................................... 46
3.2.8 Reasons for feeling part of or not part of a wider profession ..................................... 47
3.2.9 Views on collaboration and interaction with other teachers ....................................... 48
3.3 Curriculum and pedagogy in private teaching .......................................................... 49
3.3.1 Teacher control .......................................................................................................... 49
3.3.2 Choice over lesson content ........................................................................................ 52
3.3.3 The effect of received teaching on lesson content ..................................................... 56
3.3.4 External influences affecting lesson content .............................................................. 59
3.3.5 Professional responsibility and its relationship to lesson content .............................. 59
3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 61
4. Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................ 64
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 64
iv
4.2 One-to-one teaching in context ................................................................................... 65
4.3 Learning ......................................................................................................................... 73
4.3.1 Behaviourism .............................................................................................................. 73
4.3.2 Stage theory ............................................................................................................... 75
4.3.3 Constructivism ............................................................................................................ 77
4.3.4 Spiral learning ............................................................................................................ 78
4.3.5 Social constructivist theories ...................................................................................... 79
4.3.6 Situated learning and apprenticeship ......................................................................... 82
4.3.7 Metacognition and self-regulation .............................................................................. 85
4.4 Knowledge ..................................................................................................................... 86
4.4.1 Philosophy of knowledge ............................................................................................ 87
4.5 Autonomy, power, control and choice ....................................................................... 93
4.5.1 Classification and framing .......................................................................................... 94
4.5.2 Pedagogy of the Oppressed ....................................................................................... 95
4.5.3 Foucault ...................................................................................................................... 97
4.5.4 Informal learning ......................................................................................................... 98
4.5.5 Espoused theory and theory-in-use ......................................................................... 100
4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 101
5. Who are ‘private music teachers’ and what does their role include? ............................ 104
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 104
5.2 General statistics ........................................................................................................ 104
5.2.1 Number of pupils taught ........................................................................................... 105
5.2.2 Age of pupils taught .................................................................................................. 105
5.2.3 Additional work undertaken ...................................................................................... 106
5.2.4 Nature of additional work undertaken ....................................................................... 107
5.2.5 Gender of survey respondents ................................................................................. 108
5.2.6 Age of survey respondents ....................................................................................... 108
5.2.8 Location of survey respondents ............................................................................... 109
5.3 Role and identity ......................................................................................................... 109
5.4 Attributes required for being a private teacher ....................................................... 113
5.4.1 Awareness of pupils’ individual needs ...................................................................... 113
5.4.2 An ability to set boundaries and expectations .......................................................... 115
5.4.3 Control over what is taught ....................................................................................... 116
5.4.4 Commitment, dedication, reliability, purpose, respect and generosity ..................... 117
5.4.5 An ability to organise and be organised ................................................................... 118
5.4.6 Self-motivation and commitment to reflection .......................................................... 120
5.4.7 Personality traits ....................................................................................................... 120
5.4.8 Expertise, experience and skill ................................................................................. 122
5.5 Purpose and aims of being a private teacher .......................................................... 123
5.5.1 Supporting and collaborating with other professionals ............................................. 123
5.5.2 Sharing the joy of music ........................................................................................... 124
5.5.3 Sharing your experience as a musician ................................................................... 125
5.5.4 The private teacher as mentor, facilitator and guide ................................................ 126
5.5.5 Developing the skills required for independent and lifelong learning ....................... 127
5.5.6 Enabling pupils to fulfil their ambitions, goals and potential ..................................... 129
5.5.7 Developing pupil-teacher relationships and friendships ........................................... 130
5.5.8 To inspire, encourage, nurture and care for pupils ................................................... 132
5.5.9 To boost confidence, motivate, and build self-esteem in pupils ............................... 133
5.6 The business of private teaching .............................................................................. 134
5.6.1 Provision of a suitable learning environment ............................................................ 134
5.6.2 Marketing their business .......................................................................................... 136
5.6.3 Administration and financial considerations ............................................................. 136
5.6.4 Qualifications and continuing professional development ......................................... 137
5.6.5 Professional integrity and responsibility ................................................................... 139
5.7 Teaching activities ...................................................................................................... 140
5.7.1 Planning and preparation ......................................................................................... 141
5.7.2 Making, buying and acquiring resources .................................................................. 141
v
5.7.3 Teaching and delivering lessons .............................................................................. 142
5.7.4 Preparing pupils for exams ...................................................................................... 143
5.7.5 Preparing pupils for performances, auditions and competitions .............................. 144
5.7.6 Giving feedback and making assessments .............................................................. 145
5.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 145
6. Private teachers’ perceptions of involving pupils in ‘what’ and ‘how’ they teach ....... 148
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 148
6.2 Statistics ..................................................................................................................... 148
6.3 Involvement of pupils in choosing what is taught .................................................. 150
6.3.1 Repertoire choice ..................................................................................................... 151
6.3.2 Exams ...................................................................................................................... 154
6.3.3 Lesson structure ...................................................................................................... 155
6.3.4 Practical approaches to choice ................................................................................ 156
6.3.5 Pupils make particular requests ............................................................................... 157
6.3.6 Discussion and consultation with pupils ................................................................... 157
6.3.7 Listening to and asking pupils .................................................................................. 158
6.3.8 Collaboration with pupils .......................................................................................... 159
6.4 Involvement of pupils in choosing how they are taught ........................................ 160
6.4.1 Learning strategies .................................................................................................. 161
6.4.2 Discussion and consultation with pupils ................................................................... 162
6.4.3 Asking pupils ............................................................................................................ 163
6.4.4 Trial and error .......................................................................................................... 163
6.4.5 Adapting to individual pupils .................................................................................... 164
6.4.6 Responding to special needs ................................................................................... 165
6.4.7 Learning environment .............................................................................................. 165
6.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 166
7. Do private teachers perceive there to be a limit to pupil input? .................................... 168
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 168
7.2 There is a limit to pupil input .................................................................................... 169
7.2.1 Foundation set of knowledge and skills are required ............................................... 169
7.2.2 Pupil input may be restricted at certain times .......................................................... 170
7.2.3 Pupils’ choice over repertoire selection ................................................................... 171
7.2.4 Greater knowledge and expertise of the teacher ..................................................... 173
7.2.5 Responsibility of the teacher .................................................................................... 175
7.2.6 There is a need for progress to be made ................................................................. 177
7.2.7 Pupil input may be restricted because of age and/or level of ability ........................ 179
7.2.8 Pupils can disrupt the lesson ................................................................................... 181
7.2.9 Pupils may resist lesson content which is perceived as ‘unpopular’ ........................ 182
7.2.10 Lesson content may be negotiated or borne out of compromise ......................... 184
7.2.11 Lessons need a clear structure ........................................................................... 185
7.3 There is no limit to pupil input .................................................................................. 186
7.3.1 The teacher needs to trust the pupil ........................................................................ 186
7.3.2 Pupils possess ownership of the lesson .................................................................. 186
7.3.3 Pupil input leads to better engagement ................................................................... 187
7.4 Contradictions ............................................................................................................ 188
7.4.1 No limit to pupil input until the teacher feels a limit has been reached .................... 188
7.4.2 No limit to pupil input, but teachers must manage that input ................................... 189
7.4.3 No limit to pupil input, but teachers do not have to take note of that input .............. 190
7.4.4 Teacher can manipulate pupil input ......................................................................... 190
7.4.5 No limit to pupil input, but external factors could impose restrictions ...................... 190
7.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 191
8. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 193
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 193
8.2 How do teachers validate knowledge? .................................................................... 194
vi
8.2.1 Required competence at entry points into the system ............................................. 196
8.2.2 The need for foundation skills and knowledge ......................................................... 197
8.2.3 The dominance of Western Classical Music and technique ..................................... 198
8.2.4 The act of teaching that which teachers perceive to be ‘needed’ ............................. 199
8.2.5 The use of graded examinations and their requirements ......................................... 200
8.2.6 Appropriate teacher training and engagement with CPD ......................................... 201
8.3 How do teachers facilitate the construction of valid knowledge? ......................... 203
8.3.1 Teacher expertise ..................................................................................................... 203
8.3.2 Responding to individual pupil needs ....................................................................... 204
8.3.3 Pedagogical and curricula contradictions ................................................................. 208
8.3.4 Teacher responsibility .............................................................................................. 211
8.3.5 Changing and evolving teacher and pupil roles ....................................................... 213
8.4 Why are these communities of practice not evolving? ........................................... 216
8.5 How does this impact upon the effectiveness of the community of practice? .... 218
9. Key Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................... 222
9.1 Key implications ......................................................................................................... 222
9.1.1 Private teachers in a wider context .......................................................................... 222
9.1.2 Health and well-being of private teachers ................................................................ 224
9.1.3 CPD and training opportunities for private teachers ................................................. 225
9.2 Key recommendations ............................................................................................... 227
9.3 Limitations of this study ............................................................................................ 228
9.3.1 Research design and methodology .......................................................................... 228
9.3.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................. 229
9.3.3 Expansion framework ............................................................................................... 229
9.3.4 Survey ...................................................................................................................... 230
9.3.5 Reliability and validity ............................................................................................... 230
9.4 Future research ........................................................................................................... 231
9.5 Final thoughts ............................................................................................................. 234
References .................................................................................................................................... 236
Appendix A: Example of a transcribed interview ..................................................................... 255
Appendix B: Example of hand-coding a transcribed interview ............................................... 256
Appendix C: Comparison of interview data following coding, and the emergence of common
themes .......................................................................................................................................... 257
Appendix D: Example of hand-coding the pilot survey ........................................................... 258
Appendix E: Private Instrumental Teacher Survey ................................................................... 260
Appendix F: Examples of coding responses in NVivo within emerging themes ................... 272
vii
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Frequency of word use in entire main survey dataset. 35
Figure 2: Frequency of word use in respondents’ answers to the question ‘if someone asked you
what being a private teacher involved, what would you say?’ 36
Figure 3: Example of NVivo coding of survey data. 38
Figure 4: Progression of the research and its effect on the thesis’ literature review. 64
Figure 5: Korthagen’s ‘onion’: a model of levels of change. 146
Figure 6: Comparison of responses related to the importance teachers placed on their ability to
choose WHAT and HOW they taught. 149
Figure 7: Comparison of responses related to the involvement of pupils in choosing WHAT and
HOW they were taught. 150
Figure 8: Narrowing down of repertoire options when choosing exam pieces. 155
Figure 9: Layers of control and their impact upon the private instrumental lesson. 195
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Themes and codes resulting from the interviews conducted in phase one. ...................... 25
Table 2: Questions coded in the main survey. ................................................................................. 37
Table 3: Coding of data in phase one. ............................................................................................. 40
Table 4: How many private pupils do you currently teach? (n=485) .............................................. 105
Table 5: What is the age of the youngest pupil you currently teach? (n=484) ............................... 105
Table 6: What is the age of the oldest pupil you currently teach? (n=478) .................................... 106
Table 7: Do you do any other paid work alongside your private teaching? (n=483) ...................... 106
Table 8: If you have selected ‘Other music-related work’ or ‘Other non-music-related work’, briefly
describe what this is (n=275) ................................................................................................. 107
Table 9: Gender of survey respondents (n=477) ........................................................................... 108
Table 10: Age of survey respondents (n=479) ............................................................................... 108
Table 11: Location of survey respondents (n=481) ........................................................................ 109
Table 12: Coding of phase two data related to the roles of private teachers. ................................ 112
Table 13: As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose WHAT you teach? (n=484) ....... 148
Table 14: As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose HOW you teach? (n=484) ......... 148
Table 15: Do you involve your pupils in choosing WHAT to teach? (n=482) ................................. 149
Table 16: Do you involve your pupils in choosing HOW you teach? (n=479) ................................ 149
Table 17: Is there a limit to the amount of input a pupil can have in terms of the lesson content?
(n=475) .................................................................................................................................. 168
1
1. Introduction and Background to the Study
Several years ago, I was asked what I did for a living. On telling the enquirer that I was a
private music teacher, after a period of confused silence, they responded ‘but, what do
you do for a job?’ In my experience, private music teaching is an often misunderstood
profession, not least due to its historic status as what might be called a ‘cottage industry’
(Holmes, 2006, p. 29). A recent survey asked the general public what image came to mind
when they thought of a private piano teacher, teaching from home. Amongst the
responses were: ‘probably an older, rather eccentric female’; an ‘old lady next door’ with
‘cardigan, cats, musical erasers’; and ‘a woman in her 40s or 50s sitting, slightly seriously,
beside a wide-eyed child at an upright piano’ (Wilson, 2014).
I have taught flute, piano and singing privately since 2001. Over the past 19 years, I have
taught nearly 250 pupils who have ranged in age from five to 76. All the teaching I have
undertaken has been done privately on a one-to-one basis, from my own home-based
studio. Therefore, I have no personal experience of teaching peripatetically, and feel that
as a teacher, teaching privately has allowed me to teach in a way which perhaps I would
not have been able to if I was acting under the auspices of an institution. That said, I have
built up a large network of colleagues from all over the UK, and beyond, including those
who teach privately, those who teach peripatetically, and those who combine both.
Through conversations with them, I have built up an appreciation and understanding of
the differences between our roles.
When considering the world of private music teaching
1
, researchers are confronted by a
wealth of anecdotes, unanswered questions and a lack of an evidence base. At a basic
level, existing research gives little information about who private teachers are and what
they do, and despite previous attempts, questions such as these remain essentially
unanswered. It becomes clear, all too quickly, that the private instrumental teaching
profession is seen as one which exists behind closed doors. The nature of the ‘closed
door’ is such that Burwell (2005), Creech (2010) and Jorgensen (1986) highlight the
isolation of private teaching, whilst Robinson (2010, p. 4) refers to it as ‘fragmented’.
Despite these assertions, which appear to be commonplace when referring to private
music teaching, little, if any evidence exists to support them.
In my experience, people outside of the profession are often amazed to find such teachers
operate in an entirely unregulated way, and in response to this, intermittent calls are made
1
The terms ‘private music teaching’ and ‘private music teacher’ are used throughout to
embrace all forms of lessons including instrumental, music theory and singing.
2
for private teachers and tutors to be regulated (Heslett, 2018). In the UK, no requirements
exist about qualifications, lesson content, professional development, age, experience and
many other such standards which would be highly regulated in other educational
professions such as teaching in schools and higher education. In 2018, the UK
government stated that ‘all university-led and most school-led courses will provide a
postgraduate qualification, usually a postgraduate certificate in education – or PGCE’,
regardless of whether an individual is training to teach in a primary or secondary school
(Department for Education, 2018a).
Of course, the fact that no qualification requirements exist for private music teachers does
not mean there have not been calls for their introduction. Indeed, the 2011 Henley Review
into Music Education in England called for a new qualification for teachers to be
developed ‘which would professionalise and acknowledge their role in and out of school’
and which would lead to the status of ‘Qualified Music Educator’ (D. Henley, 2011, p. 36).
Borne out of this recommendation was the Certificate for Music Educators (CME), an
optional qualification designed for, amongst others, instrumental and vocal teachers.
However, access to the qualification is restricted to those who are able to study through
‘approved centres’ (Trinity College London, 2018), and thus, in the main, it has excluded
teachers working privately. Several years on from the introduction of the CME, it continues
to develop; however, the focus remains on teachers working for music education hubs
and other such organisations (Stevens, 2018).
Private music teachers are not alone in being part of an unregulated profession, for it is
estimated that there are a quarter of a million academic tutors working in the UK (The
Tutors’ Association, 2018). Whilst The Tutors’ Association, a membership organisation
representing private tutors in the UK, claims that ‘membership of The Tutors' Association
is a significant reassurance to parents that the tutors they employ would have successfully
passed a DBS check and signed up to the Association's code of ethical conduct’ (The
Tutors’ Association, 2018), parents are still encouraged to ‘check the tutor’s credentials, in
other words look into their education, experience and references’, credentials which for
those working in an institution, would most likely have been checked by their employer
(The Tutors’ Association, 2017).
In a similar way, organisations such as the Council for Dance, Drama and Musical Theatre
(CDMT) exist to provide teachers with a platform by which they might become accredited;
however, as the organisation states, they exist primarily to work ‘closely with member
schools, awarding organisations and industry bodies to ensure standards remain at a level
that secures the supply of quality practitioners for the future’ rather than in a regulatory
sense (CDMT, 2018). The Royal Academy of Dance offers a pathway course leading to
3
Registered Teacher Status (RTS) (Royal Academy of Dance, 2018) in a similar way to
private music teachers applying to the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) to gain
Registered Private Teacher status (ISM, 2018b). This shows that private music teachers
are not alone in finding themselves in a somewhat anomalous position within the
educational landscape.
Whilst my research focusses predominantly on the UK, the position overseas is not
dissimilar. Where such parallels can be drawn, I have also cited research conducted
outside of the UK. In the USA, ‘any musician can open a studio and solicit individual
students’ (Fredrickson, Moore, & Gavin, 2013, p. 333), and similarly, reports into a study
in Germany found that one-to-one teaching was ‘neither strictly regulated nor under
scrutiny by any authority’ (Nafisi, 2013, p. 347). The autonomy possessed by private
teachers in the UK appears not to be found in isolation, yet it is almost unique within the
educational landscape.
1.1 Private teaching in context
It is appropriate to consider the wider role that private music teachers play within the
music education landscape of the UK, for their teaching rarely exists in isolation. In the
UK, instrumental lessons are primarily delivered in one of two ways: either through a
private teacher, or through a teacher based in a school, college or similar institution. In the
case of the latter, teachers may be employed directly by the institution or in the case of
schools, through a local authority music service or hub. Teachers may also be engaged
on a self-employed basis. Instrumental lessons taught in institutional settings may be
charged for, delivered free or subsidised.
In recent years, the UK government has sought to ensure instrumental lessons remain
accessible to all through the introduction of schemes such as Whole Class Ensemble
Teaching (WCET) and First Access programmes which provide all children of primary age
with at least one term per year of instrumental tuition (All-Party Parliamentary Group for
Music Education, ISM, & University of Sussex, 2019, p. 6). These programmes of
instrumental tuition were designed to support the statutory requirement for music to be
taught until the end of Key Stage 3 (age 14) (All-Party Parliamentary Group for Music
Education et al., 2019, p. 8). In contrast, private tuition is overwhelmingly accessible only
to those who can afford it. Whilst in my own experience, I am aware of a small number of
private teachers who offer scholarships, private lessons can be accessed by only a subset
of the population.
4
In addition to the provision of instrumental lessons, it is important to consider the role of
curriculum music as part of state-funded education. One of the primary reasons for the
emphasis being placed on the provision of music in schools is that it is, in theory,
accessible to all, regardless of financial background. That accessibility may cover the
provision of both classroom music and instrumental lessons such as the government-
backed schemes outlined above. As I shall explore below, the continuing decline of music
in schools has severely impacted upon the notion of accessibility for all.
It is perhaps no surprise that given many of us will have experienced our first taste of
music-making in schools, music in schools and music in the school curriculum is at the top
of the agenda when it comes to the wider discussion of music education. That said, the
place of and value placed upon music in schools, and indeed all arts subjects, is one
which continues to be challenged, not least as a result of accountability measures,
academisation and the introduction of qualifications such as the EBacc
2
(ISM, 2018a).
In a 2018 survey (Jeffreys, 2018), it was reported that nine in every 10 schools had cut
back on arts subjects, citing funding pressures and a lack of resources as being common
reasons for this. Schools also reported that arts subjects had been cut back in relation to
the increased emphasis on those perceived to be ‘academic’ subjects. Indeed, the then
chief of Ofsted
3
, had stated that ‘academic subjects were the best route to higher-level
study’ (Jeffreys, 2018). Similar research found that in 2017, around 19,000 fewer pupils
opted to take an arts subject at Key Stage 4
4
compared to 2014 (Adams, 2017).
One of the reasons cited for such a decline in the value of music in schools is the
introduction of the EBacc. Schools are being measured on their performance in EBacc
subjects, and by consequence, are steering pupils away from non-EBacc subjects, such
as the arts (see All-Party Parliamentary Group for Music Education et al., 2019). As the
EBacc excludes ‘creative, artistic and technical subjects’ from counting in key school
league tables this has led to a undermining of ‘creativity in schools’ (ISM, 2018c). Whilst
outside the scope of this research project, many challenges face the provision of arts
2
In the UK, the EBacc, or English Baccalaureate is a set of subjects at GCSE (age 14-16)
used to measure the success of the performance of a school, which includes English
Language and Literature, Maths, Sciences, Geography, History and Languages
(Department for Education, 2018b), but which excludes arts subjects.
3
Ofsted, or the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, is
responsible for inspecting and reporting on a range of UK educational institutions
including schools.
4
In the UK, Key Stage 4 includes school pupils age 14-16 in Years 10 and 11, in most
cases, working towards their General Certificate of Education (GCSE) exams sat at the
end of the Key Stage.
5
education in schools, and questions surrounding the value of music education continue to
be raised.
In addition to the provision of music education as part of the school curriculum, the role
played by county music services and music education ‘hubs’ in providing both individual
and group instrumental tuition in schools, and in some cases, county-wide ensemble-
based music-making opportunities should be considered. The music hubs were another
initiative borne of the National Plan for Music Education, the premise being that ‘schools,
Local Authority Music Services, Arts Council England client organisations and other
recognised delivery organisations should work together to create Music Education Hubs in
each Local Authority area’ (D. Henley, 2011, p. 18). Government funding for the hubs has
been ring-fenced until 2020; however, there have been no additional funds allocated, a
decision which has affected hubs facing increasing costs and associated spending (Hill,
2017).
Unlike the funding of music education hubs in England, in Wales, there is no ring-fenced
funding for music services, and currently, some areas have no government-funded music
service at all (Vann, 2018a). In England, the picture in some areas is equally bleak. As an
example, East Sussex County Council announced plans to close its county music service
by 2019 due to a funding shortfall of £80,000. It provided music lessons to around 7,000
children in schools, and a further 1,000 attended its music centres each week (Vann,
2018b). Other professionals have noted the decrease in instrumental tuition, for example,
‘I have just become aware that the primary school my daughter is leaving this July will no
longer have any children learning an orchestral instrument in the school from
September…Having spoken to a number of colleagues, it seems this situation is not
unusual’ (Marshall, 2018, p. 8).
The changing provision of instrumental lessons in schools alongside the cited decline in
school music provision as a whole, has the potential to impact on private teachers. Whilst
the research was conducted in the USA, it was noted as far back as the early 1990s
(Brown, 1994), that as a result of a reduction in the provision of instrumental lessons in
schools, the number of pupils seeking to learn with a private teacher had increased. 20
years later, a parallel can be drawn with that research, as the same was discussed at
some length on the Piano Network UK Facebook Group in 2015, one contributor saying:
‘A good friend of mine who teaches [privately] told me that since the cutbacks in
local education authority spending on music, she's seen a 27% increase in
numbers of people wanting piano lessons. Some formally to take their gradings,
and others to supplement the lessons they are having in school.’
(Lamentation, 2015)
6
Access to music for children, both as part of the school curriculum and as extra-curricular
opportunities remains precarious. The provision of classroom and instrumental music
lessons in schools is testing the notion of accessibility for all. Children previously learning
an instrument in school may seek a private teacher; however, the cost will be prohibitive
for many. It is not yet clear how this changing picture may impact upon private teachers in
the future, suffice to say, those teachers are not insusceptible to the effects.
Music education is something which all ages can engage in and this is an area which
should not be overlooked nor underestimated. Whilst the focus is often on music
education for children and young people, the benefits of music, especially later in life
continue to be well documented (e.g. Hallam, Creech, McQueen, Varvarigou, & Gaunt,
2016), and in my own teaching, I have seen a considerable increase in adult learners.
Currently, 60% of my pupils are over the age of 18, more than half of those being over the
age of 60. Adult music learning is cited as another under-researched area in itself, and as
stated by Shirley (2015, p. 1) ‘the majority of music education research, training and
educational material focuses on teaching children’. Given that most institution-based
opportunities for music learning are aimed at children, private music teachers play an
important role in the provision for older learners.
1.2 Research questions and rationale
Heeding the warning that ‘a piece of research that is conducted by an unwilling or bored
researcher could easily turn out to be unimpressive’ (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p.
106), the autonomy that private music teachers possess is something which has always
interested me, sufficiently so to maintain my research interest over many years. Through
this research project, my aim is to advance our understanding of the private music
teaching profession, so that there might be better engagement with, appreciation of the
role of, and effective provision for these teachers going forward in the 21st century as part
of the wider music education landscape.
When I first thought about this research, I had an underlying question in my mind: if no
one tells you what to teach, how do you decide what to do? This is a fairly fundamental
question: it has a huge impact on the way individuals, institutions and organisations
engage with private music teachers. It affects everything from the books and resources
available from publishers, to the courses and training opportunities provided by institutions
and organisations. Fundamentally, I kept coming back to the issue of autonomy, and as a
consequence of that, my three initial research questions were:
7
1. What constitutes valid knowledge in the context of private instrumental teaching?
2. How is the private instrumental teaching curriculum designed in order to facilitate
the construction and realization of valid knowledge?
3. How does the autonomy of the private instrumental curriculum support and
challenge the quality of teaching and learning?
In addition to considering the autonomous nature of the profession, especially in relation
to pedagogy and curriculum, as a subsidiary to these three specific questions, I
investigated whether there is any evidence to suggest that the underlying narrative of the
‘closed door’ approach cited in the literature is borne out. Inevitably, more questions have
arisen, and my understanding of the above questions has evolved during the course of
the project. This is particularly the case when embarking on a research project which does
not benefit from extensive background literature.
Through the course of my literature review, interviews and main survey, it became clear
that the private teaching profession is not sufficiently understood so as to be able to
provide a clear background to underpin such research. Better understanding of the
profession and the decision-making process which teachers engage with in terms of how
they see their role, and their approach to curriculum and pedagogy will aid researchers’
ability to address more in-depth issues of validity of knowledge, and quality of teaching
and learning. With this in mind, these working questions also formed part of my project,
and it is through exploration of these that I feel better placed to answer my original
research questions:
1. Is there sufficient evidence to label private music teaching as a ‘closed-door
profession’?
2. Who are private music teachers and what does their role include?
3. How do private music teachers perceive the involvement of pupils in ‘what’ and
‘how’ they teach?
Overall, the research has been influenced by a constructivist approach to Grounded
Theory. This has resulted in a mixed methods approach to data collection that has
included interviewing, qualitative and quantitative surveys, with an underlying element of
ethnographic and narrative inquiry. The research design and methodology are discussed
further in Chapter 2 but here, I present an initial review of literature, as it relates to the
research questions. Following the interviews discussed in Chapter 3, further review of
literature was conducted, and this is presented in Chapter 4.
8
1.3 Background to the study
One of the problems with researching private teaching is that, like the nature of the work
itself, there is no universally agreed definition of the term. I call myself a private teacher,
and I have been giving private one-to-one lessons since August 2001. My definition of
‘private teaching’ is that all my teaching is done on a self-employed basis and has been
delivered either from my home-based studio or by my travelling to pupils’ homes.
The term ‘private teacher’ is commonly used in the UK. The Incorporated Society of
Musicians (ISM) makes a clear distinction between ‘private tuition’ and ‘self-employed
visiting music teachers in schools’ (ISM, 2016a); a subsidiary distinction is made between
classroom teachers, private teachers and those teaching in higher education (ISM,
2016b). Similar distinctions can be found in separating a ‘private instrumental/vocal
teacher’ from a ‘school instrumental/vocal teacher’ and a ‘music service teacher’ (ABRSM,
2014).
Distinctions are also made overseas. In the USA, Jacobi (2005, p. 34) differentiates
between ‘private teaching’ and teaching in institutional settings. Confusingly though, some
researchers apply the term ‘private teaching’ to those teaching, mainly on a one-to-one
basis in a variety of settings including institutions (Fredrickson, Moore, et al., 2013, pp.
217–218). Equally, the term ‘private teacher’ has also been used to include those who
teach in schools, colleges or community-based settings, and those hired by local authority
music services, though a distinction is made in that those who travel to locations to teach
outside the home are often termed ‘peripatetic teachers’ (AGCAS
6
Editors, 2016). Private
teachers are generally, but not exclusively, considered to be self-employed (AGCAS
Editors, 2016), for example, instrumental teachers who apply to be MMA
7
members are
said to be ‘self-employed’ (MMA, 2015).
Other terms are less commonly used, including, particularly in the USA, ‘independent
teacher’ (Klingenstein, 2009; MTNA, 2016; Siebenaler, 1997). Often associated with this
term is the ‘studio’, the place designated as the location where the teaching takes place.
Indeed, Parkes and Daniel (2013, p. 397) use the term ‘studio’ to mean a ‘private lesson’.
Creech (2010, p. 295) refers to the ‘music studio’ as a place where ‘one-to-one tuition’ is
given on a ‘freelance basis’. Within this definition, she includes instrumental teachers who
rent studio space, those who teach from home-based private studios and those teachers
who travel to pupils’ homes. Creech’s definition is closest to my own, and is, in my view,
6
The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services.
7
MMA was previously known as the Music Masters’ and Mistresses’ Association.
9
the primary definition of private teaching in the UK. Thus, this definition underpins my
research into the subject, though it should be noted that the outcome of this research has
the potential to be limited by participants’ own definitions.
Despite its common use, one potential problem with the term ‘private teacher’ is
highlighted by Robinson (2010, p. 8) who says it implies that research would almost be an
intrusion into a teacher’s privacy. Nafisi (2013, pp. 347–348) demonstrates similar
findings, saying lessons are ‘traditionally a rather ‘private affair’’ resulting in little being
known about what actually happens during the lessons.
One of the notable differences between ‘private teachers’ and teachers who work in
schools, colleges and other organisations, is the degree of autonomy they possess.
Jorgensen (1986, p. 127) found that private teachers had a ‘wider decision-making role in
which administrative functions were more prominent than that typically seen in institutional
teaching’. At an ISM Members’ Day
8
in 2014, there was some degree of debate as to
whether private teaching should be considered under the umbrella of the special interest
group called ‘Music Educators’. Previously, there had been two sections, one for ‘private
teachers’ and one for ‘musicians in education’. Some members present felt that private
teaching fell into a very different sphere to other forms of education, though there was
some agreement that at the end of the day, all are music educators. This demonstrates
the sense, at least amongst some music educators, that private teaching fulfils a very
separate role to that of other forms of instrumental teaching. Importantly, Creech (2010, p.
298) identifies that private teachers are not subject to ‘institutional factors’ which would
‘impact on issues relating to objectives, curriculum and assessment.’
This autonomy puts private instrumental teachers in an almost unique position in
education; a position which has the potential to both help and hinder a pupil’s musical
development. As Chappell (1999, p. 261) says:
‘Under the present system it seems unlikely that there will ever come a time when
all instrumental teachers can be made accountable…Until that time the many
excellent teachers that exist will still have to compete with those who have little
idea of what is involved in the development of real musicianship.’
Any teacher who frequents one of the several online forums related to music education
will probably be familiar with enquiries such as this:
8
I attended the ISM (Incorporated Society of Musicians) Members’ Day which was held at
the Royal Overseas League Club, Park Place, London, SW1A 1LR, on 24th April, 2014.
10
‘I have recently been made redundant and have a little boy so as well as looking
for a new (part time) job I am looking at my options and thinking ahead to when my
son is at school…I completed my piano grade exams when I was in my late teens
up to Grade 8. Although I don’t have a piano at the moment and would be ‘rusty’ to
say the least…I’m sure once I get a piano (I have been looking) I will pick it up
again in no time and would love to teach in schools.’
(“VCPiano,” 2014).
This kind of message is not uncommon and brings home the reality of the profession.
Would we, for example, be happy to have our appendix removed by a surgeon who had
studied A-Level Biology and whose skills were ‘a bit rusty’? The poster is, of course, not at
fault, for there is no form of regulation. They are as entitled as the next person to teach,
should they choose to do so.
Creech (2010, p. 298) found that there is ‘relatively little’ research into private teaching,
although instrumental teaching in conservatoires, colleges and universities has been well-
researched over the years. Burwell (2005, 2012) looked at the nature of interaction in
instrumental teaching and its wider context within a university music department, in
particular, exploring and challenging the notion of the ‘expert teacher’. Gaunt (2008)
examined the perceptions of one-to-one tutors in a conservatoire environment, suggesting
that teacher dominance could lead to the suppression of student voice. Nerland (2007)
wrote about instrumental teaching in a music college, specifically interactions within the
context of cultural practice, finding that such mechanisms for learning and teaching were
often taken for granted, and by consequence, lacked reflexivity. Renshaw (1986)
examined the ‘aims, structure, content and activities’ of a conservatoire curriculum,
suggesting ways in which it could reach out to and impact upon the wider community.
There have also been a number of researchers who have examined the nature of
instrumental lessons within schools, for example, West and Rostvall (2003) looked at
patterns of interaction in instrumental lessons in a school in Sweden finding that the
interactions were teacher-controlled, resulting in the suppression of student initiative.
Research specifically in the area of private teaching is almost non-existent. Whilst there
are studies (e.g. Kooistra, 2016; Mackworth-Young, 1990a) which have been conducted
within a private teaching environment, they do not specifically explore the autonomous
nature of the teaching context. Similarly, several studies (e.g. Cathcart, 2013; Goddard,
2002) have been conducted in instrument-specific contexts such as private piano
teaching. In a similar way to Cathcart (2013), L. Gibbs (1993) surveyed private teachers’
professional development and training. The only study which has looked specifically at
private teaching, decision-making and control, is Jorgensen (1986). She examined a
range of issues which impacted upon a small sample of 15 private piano teachers in
11
London in the 1980s, including curriculum, pedagogy, business, training and
qualifications.
Despite the lack of evidence, coupled with the fact that private teachers inevitably
experience more autonomy in their teaching than, for example, either peripatetic teachers
working in schools, or instrumental teachers working in universities, colleges and
conservatoires, Creech (2010) finds some common features between private teachers
and those working in institutions, thus, this body of research should not be discarded.
There is therefore an important body of research which relates to instrumental teaching
and one-to-one tuition in more general terms (e.g. Duke, 1999; Hallam, 1998; Mawer,
1999; Mills, 2007; Mills & Smith, 2003; Ward, 2004a; V. Young, Burwell, & Pickup, 2003).
The evidence for why the nature of private teaching has been largely side-lined in
educational research is unclear. Creech (2010, p. 298) suggests that private teachers are
possibly unwilling to participate in research because they ‘do not benefit from the
protection of a wider institutional framework’. As mentioned previously, Robinson (2010)
suggests that private teachers may see research into their work as an invasion of privacy.
Interaction is a large part of learning a musical instrument. The primary interaction is
between pupil and teacher in the course of the lesson, but the act of progressing is a
shared journey of learning influenced by a wide range of external factors and experiences.
I begin from a social constructivist point of view, something I explore further in Chapter 2
(section 2.1), that knowledge is constructed collaboratively in social settings (e.g. the
instrumental lesson). Vygotsky, in particular, wrote extensively about pedagogies which
arose in and were shaped by specific social circumstances (Daniels, 2001). As Vygotsky
himself argued (1986, p. 36), ‘the true direction of the development of thinking is not from
the individual to the social, but from the social to the individual’. The idea of social
interaction, and by consequence, the effect on the practice of a community, is something
which I shall return to later in this thesis. As I am interested specifically in the construction
of knowledge within social settings, it is not sufficient merely to measure the extent of a
particular phenomenon, but rather there is a need to explore the reasons why such a
phenomenon exists as it does. Therefore, a qualitative approach suits such a study,
where the emphasis is on ‘the world of experience as it is lived, felt and undergone by
people acting in social situations’ (Robson, 2015).
Whilst this chapter sets the scene for the research and gives brief overview of the
literature and research design, both these are explored in more depth below (see
Chapters 2 and 4). Some of the literature introduced here is also explored further in
Chapter 3 in response to the analysis of the interview data collected in phase one.
12
1.4 Presentation of thesis chapters
The thesis is largely divided into chapters which reflect the order in which the research
was undertaken. Following an overview and exploration in Chapter 2 of the research
design and methodology, I then present an analysis of the interviews conducted in phase
one (Chapter 3). This is followed by the main literature review (Chapter 4), and then the
data gathered via the main survey in phase two (Chapters 5 to 7). The thesis closes with a
discussion which encompasses data gathered in both phases, alongside relevant
literature and theoretical frameworks (Chapter 8). The final chapter (Chapter 9) identifies
the key stakeholders and the implications this research might have for them, in addition to
outlining recommendations for future research.
13
2. Research Design and Methodology
Having considered in Chapter 1 the background to the subject area, the context of private
teaching, and the overarching aims of the research, this chapter deals specifically with the
way the research was designed and carried out in order to seek answers to the research
questions. I shall first consider the design itself, specifically the purpose of the research
and the framework which underpins that design. I will then discuss the methods used for
the collection and analysis of the data. As I outline below, the overall aim of the research
design and methodology has been to maintain an integrity to the research whilst allowing
for flexibility and evolution in response to the data.
2.1 Research design and approach
The underlying object of the research was to find out more about the private music
teaching profession, especially the way in which the autonomy private teachers possess
affects their approach to curriculum and pedagogy. Somekh et al. (2011, p. 2) define
research in the social sciences as:
‘concerned with people and their life contexts, and with philosophical questions
relating to the nature of knowledge and truth (epistemology), values (axiology) and
being (ontology) which underpin human judgements and activities.’
I view music making, and indeed, music teaching as a form of social interaction. Even in a
one-to-one lesson, knowledge and meaning are constructed within that particular context.
Private teachers and the lessons which they teach do not exist in isolation, however
isolated the teachers may themselves feel. I therefore adopt a social constructivist
position, where, as stated by Robson (2015, p. 24), ‘meaning does not exist in its own
right; it is constructed by human beings as they interact and engage in interpretation’.
Vygotsky (1978, 1986) in particular highlighted the importance of social interaction and its
effect on learning, and as a result, emphasis is often placed on notions of partnership and
apprenticeship within social constructivism. Whilst, as stated by Wheelahan (2010), there
are different versions of social constructivist theories, Chappell (as cited in Wheelahan,
2010, p. 5) highlights an agreement that ‘learning involves the active construction of
meaning by learners, which is context dependent, socially mediated and situated in the
“real world” of the learner’.
I was particularly interested in the way private teachers’ understanding of knowledge, and
the values which underpin this, is constructed in response to both individual and collective
social contexts and interactions. As indicated by Robson (2015, p. 24), adopting a social
constructivist position, I am interested in ‘the world of experience as it is lived, felt and
14
undergone by people acting in social situations’. Charmaz (2014, p. 14) places the
emphasis in such research on ‘social contexts, interaction, sharing viewpoints, and
interpretative understandings’. Similarly, Wheelahan (2010, p. 5) suggests that social
constructivism emphasises the ‘contextual, situated and problem-orientated nature of
knowledge creation and learning’. In Chapter 4 (section 4.3.5) I discuss the development
of social constructivism more specifically in relation to music education.
With that in mind, social constructivists are often situated within the interpretivist
paradigm, that is they are ‘interested in people and the way they interrelate’ (Thomas,
2009, p. 75). In contrast to those situated within a positivist paradigm, Thomas (2009, p.
75) states that those researching, as I do, within an interpretative paradigm are interested
in what understandings ‘the people we are talking to have about the world, and how can
we in turn understand these’. As outlined in Chapter 1 (section 1.3), given some of the
labels previously applied to private teaching, most notably that their practice exists behind
closed doors (Burwell, 2005; Creech, 2010; Jorgensen, 1986), my aim was to put the
voices of the teachers themselves at the heart of the research. Therefore, the research
seeks to explore how private teachers understand their role, and in turn, how those
understandings might be interpreted.
My overall approach to the design of the research project was one of flexibility. Robson
(2015, p. 133) states that in flexibly designed research ‘you don’t have to foreclose on
options about methods. Ideas for changing your approach may arise from your
involvement and early data collection’. With the aim to allow teachers’ voices to come
through, a flexible approach also allowed me to adapt and evolve my approach to data
collection and analysis in response to these.
It quickly became clear that the lack of existing research which looked specifically at the
autonomous nature of private music teaching (as opposed to simply ‘one-to-one’ music
tuition or studies conducted within the private music tuition setting) was likely to prove a
challenging aspect of this study. Birks and Mills (2013, p. 13) state that Grounded Theory
is particularly appropriate where ‘little is known about the area of study’. Whilst I have not
sought to conduct a strict Grounded Theory study, my research design and methodology
has been influenced in particular by a constructivist approach to Grounded Theory.
Grounded Theory originated from a seminal and often-termed, revolutionary, publication
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which outlined a methodological approach which sought to
derive theories systematically from human behaviour and empirical data. The overall aim
of Grounded Theory was to offer researchers a means to control the research process in
a way which allowed qualitative studies to move beyond mere description. Grounded
15
Theory consists of ‘systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analysing
qualitative data to construct theories from the data themselves’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 1).
Overall, the aim of Grounded Theory was to focus on qualitative data itself, and to
generate theories based upon it, as opposed to verifying existing theories (Urquhart,
2013), hence its attraction in studies where there are few, if any, existing theories to verify.
Grounded Theory has evolved beyond both Glaser and Strauss’s collective and individual
interpretations. Most notably, there has been a move since the 1990s towards a
constructivist interpretation. This preserved much of the original approach, but sought
more strongly to highlight the flexible nature of the method underpinned by an assumption
that ‘social reality is multiple, processual, and constructed’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 13).
Alongside this, constructivists assert that the research itself is inherently affected by
researchers’ positions, interactions and perspectives. Ultimately, this removes the notion
of the ‘neutral observer’ but emphasises the need for researchers to examine how their
‘privileges and preconceptions may shape their analysis’ (Charmaz, 2014, p. 13).
Thomas (2009, pp. 75–76) states that those who situate themselves within an
interpretivist paradigm ‘should be a participant in your research situation and understand it
as an insider’. This was an important aspect of my research, for as stated by Cohen et al.
(2011, p. 18), research can be undertaken with ‘experience and understanding’. My role
as a researcher is to ‘begin with individuals and set out to understand their interpretations
of the world around them’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 18). Within an interpretative paradigm,
the data gathered will reflect the ‘meanings and purposes of those people who are their
source’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 18), reinforcing, once again, a desire to bring teachers’
voices to the fore.
It is important to note that within this paradigm, the emphasis is not on the generation of
universal theory, but rather ‘multifaceted images of human behaviour as varied as the
situations and contexts supporting them’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 18). Approaching this
research from within an interpretivist paradigm, I recognise that my ‘social background,
likes and dislikes, preferences and predilections, political affiliations, class, gender and
ethnicity’ (Thomas, 2009, p. 76) affect my interpretation. It is important to acknowledge
this position; however, Thomas (2009, p. 75) also states that this can be used to ‘help
interpret the expressed views and behaviour of others’.
I approached the research with knowledge of existing literature which offered background
to the study and a means to develop a research design and methodology which
recognised that. Charmaz (2014, p. 306) states that ‘researchers typically hold
perspectives and possess knowledge in their fields before they decide on a research
16
topic’. Given that I approached this research from an interpretive paradigm, it was
important to establish ‘an indication of the extent of current knowledge and work
undertaken in the field’ (Birks & Mills, 2013, p. 22). As stated by Charmaz (2014, p. 308),
‘the literature review gives you an opportunity to set the stage for what you do in
subsequent sections or chapters’, and with that in mind, I presented an overview in
Chapter 1 (section 1.3).
One aspect of the things which contributed to the overall iterative nature of the study was
the process of writing memos. According to Charmaz (2014, p. 162) ‘memos catch your
thoughts, capture the comparisons and connections you make, and crystallize questions
and directions for you to pursue’. Memos were an important element of the data analysis
in both phases, not least because this was an iterative rather than linear process (Robson,
2015). Throughout the whole research process, I have kept a series of notes as thoughts
and ideas emerge both in response to the literature and the data itself. These have
ranged from jottings in notebooks, to more complex pieces of writing as the project
progressed. As suggested by Charmaz (2014, p. 165):
‘Do what works for you but aim to make your memos increasingly analytic. Memos
may be free and flowing, they may be short and stilted – especially as you enter
new analytical terrain.’
The use of memos afforded me the opportunity as a researcher to reflect, not merely on
the data, but on the research process too.
Another important part of the research process for me, and another useful way of keeping
memos, was presenting at conferences. By formulating some of my research into
coherent presentations during the process of data collection and analysis, I was able to
explore emerging themes, in addition to gaining the insights of an audience (Barton, 2015,
2016, 2017). Another benefit of such presentations was not only the discussions which
took place with other delegates, but also the reflection offered through post-presentation
questions.
Having discussed my overall approach to the research design, I will now focus on each of
the two phases in turn discussing the methods employed in each for the process of data
collection and analysis. As discussed below (see section 2.2.3), it was not until phase one
was completed that it was clear what phase two, if there was to be one, would consist of,
and this, once again, reflects the flexibility of the research design.
17
2.2 Phase one
Taking my own experiences, the existing background literature, knowledge of the contexts
in which private teachers operate, and the research questions themselves, I decided to
conduct a series of interviews with private music teachers. The aim of this phase was
twofold. Firstly, it was to test this methodology to see whether the data gathered would
allow me to present a narrative of their stories, in other words, to demonstrate how they
construct knowledge within their particular social settings. The second aim was to provide
a platform which allowed teachers’ voices to come through so that the research could
respond to their own experiences, interests and concerns. As stated by Cohen et al.
(2011, p. 18), ‘researchers begin with individuals’ and in the process of these initial
interviews, I sought to put the voices of the teachers themselves at the heart of the study.
2.2.1 Interview design and construction
Interviewing is a widely-recognised data collection tool in qualitative research. In using
interviews, researchers move from seeing individuals as mere units of data, to being
autonomous individuals. Through interviewing, researchers move ‘towards regarding
knowledge as generated between humans, often through conversations’ (Cohen et al.,
2011, p. 409) which supports my social constructivist position. It is true that an interview is
a ‘planned event’ rather than an ‘everyday conversation’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 409), but
nevertheless, interviews ‘lend themselves well to be used in conjunction with other
methods, in a multi-strategy design or multi-method approach’ (Robson, 2015, p. 279)
such as mine.
The interviews I conducted were intended to be informal, the emphasis being on gathering
a range of initial views on the issues previously identified, but also allowing opportunity for
participants to talk about issues which they felt were important in the profession to which
they belong, and which, in turn, may influence future research direction. Robson (2015, p.
280) terms this to be an ‘unstructured’ interview in which the researcher has a ‘general
area of interest and concern but lets the conversation develop within this area’. Thomas
(2009) highlights the use of unstructured interviews as an effective data collection tool
when approaching research from the interpretivist paradigm. Similarly, Edwards and
Holland (2013, p. 5) cite this form of interviewing as reflecting a move away from a
positivist approach, to one of ‘reflexive construction, difference and shifting positionalities
of researcher and researched’. In this type of interview, realities are co-constructed, and
this is an important feature in relation to my interpretivist position (Lincoln, Lynham, &
Guba, 2011).
18
Charmaz (2014, p. 85) terms this type of interviewing to be ‘intensive’, saying these
interviews are ‘open-ended yet directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet
unrestricted’. Similarly, Charmaz (2014, p. 85) cites the ability to ‘elicit a range of
responses and discourses, including a person’s concerns at the moment’ as one of the
primary benefits of conducting interviews in this way. As stated by Robson (2015, p. 280),
‘face-to-face interviews offer the possibility of modifying one’s lines of enquiry, following
up interesting responses and investigating underlying motives’, something limited in phase
two.
The participants required for phase one of the study were found via my professional
networks on social media. I posted a message explaining what my research was about
and what I was looking to do and asked for willing participants who would be prepared to
be interviewed. 10 private music teachers offered to take part, and three were chosen on
the basis of geographical logistics and availability on a particular day. It is a limitation of
this study that all three teachers were located in a similar geographical area which has the
potential to influence outcomes.
There is considerable debate within the research community regarding the number of
interviews necessary, and indeed, papers related to this subject often raise more
questions than they answer (Baker & Edwards, 2012). Whilst some suggest that
interviews are needed until saturation point is reached, others argue that the number will
depend on the depth of analysis being undertaken. As Charmaz (2014, p. 108) states,
seek ‘excellence’ rather than ‘adequacy’. In my case, I felt that as an initial number, three
interviews were sufficient to explore the general issues related to my research and to test
the methodology.
In view of the original research questions and background to the study, I identified four
areas for discussion in the interviews:
• Why did the participant want to teach?
• Why did they do some private teaching, and what were the differences between
private teaching and other forms of instrumental teaching (e.g. peripatetic
teaching)?
• Did they feel part of a profession as a private teacher, and was it a profession
which is well respected?
• How did they decide what and how to teach, and what influenced these choices?
The first three discussion points were designed to explore teachers’ values and beliefs
about private teaching, both within their own social contexts and the context of the wider
19
profession. These points for discussion seek to shine a light on an industry which, as
previously discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.3), is not well understood. The aim here was
that by better understanding the values, beliefs and motivations of the teachers
themselves, it might be possible to better understand what and why they teach in the way
they do. The final discussion point addresses this more specifically.
I felt it was important at this early stage that the participants were given time and space to
relay their own views about the wider issues affecting the profession, thus the emphasis
was not merely on gaining a set of answers, but rather ‘with the researcher’s interpretive
interjections added on, but also [to] bring in an analytic lens on what Briggs has called “the
larger practices of knowledge production that makes up the research from beginning to
end”’ (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015, p. 108). The nature of an unstructured interview is such
that the researcher can adapt the course of the interview in relation to the responses
(Robson, 2015), something which was particularly important in this initial phase of ‘testing
the water’.
In consideration of my philosophical position discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1) above, I
did not approach the interviews as merely a passive observer. I adopted in part, what
Charmaz (2014, p. 91) terms to be ‘constructivist interviewing’, that is where interviews
are seen as ‘emergent interactions in which social bonds may develop’. There are,
however, limitations to this approach. Given the interviews were to be generally informal,
and, to a certain degree, the subjects known to me beforehand, there is the potential for
researcher bias. Robson (2015, p. 157) highlights in particular, the problems related to
bias associated with a ‘close relationship between the researcher and the setting and
between the researcher and the respondents’.
The three interviews were conducted on the basis of a professional talking to another
professional. There were instances during the interviews where I have either agreed with
something the participant has said, for example, in this discussion about the value of
lessons beyond the music itself:
‘Par: I’m very conscious that I’m probably, outside of their family…the only adult
…they see one-to-one for half an hour every week, and that’s actually an
enormous privilege, but it’s a huge responsibility as well.
Int: It is. I think I’ve always said, perhaps unkindly, it’s the only time they get a
decent one-to-one conversation with another adult.’
9
9
Par = Participant, Int = Interviewer
20
There were also instances where I have relayed something of my own experience. In this
instance, it was in relation to a discussion about how much notice should be given for a
lesson to be cancelled:
‘Int: And in some ways, what use is 24 hours’ notice anyway?
Par: Exactly, yes, true, that’s true.
Int: Or 48 hours even, I mean I find myself quite often saying, well, you know,
it’s too late by then, people often say well “I’m sure you can fill the slot”, but
no, you know, it’s too late, the week is organised. 24 hours, 48 hours
doesn’t actually make that any easier.’
Despite the potential for bias, there are advantages to such an approach, particularly in
consideration of my philosophical position. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015, p. 109) term this
form of interviewing to be participatory, in other words, the interviewer:
‘does not treat the descriptions and stories of the interviewees as facts to be
analysed but rather as utterances coproduced in the situated interaction of the
interview…the interviewer is actively participating in creating a conversation.’
As I am part of the same profession as the participants, we share similar experiences, and
indeed, Thomas (2009, p. 76) highlights the benefits of being an ‘insider’. This leads to an
ethnographic element, whereby ‘the researcher will be both a member of the group and
yet studying that group’ (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 232). Acknowledging my philosophical
position, whilst engaging with participants in this way introduces the potential for bias, it
was nevertheless important to build up a degree of trust.
2.2.2 Ethical considerations
There were a number of ethical considerations in relation to the interviews. Participants
were required to give voluntary informed consent; in other words, participants had to
understand what was being asked of them and any effects their participation may have,
notably:
• Participants had the right to withdraw from the research at any stage without being
asked why;
• Participants were not obliged to answer any questions they did not wish to answer;
• Anything recorded in the interviews would be anonymised, as appropriate, before
dissemination or further use (the boundaries of which were clear and shared), to
ensure participants cannot be identified;
21
• To make it clear there were no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers, and that I was merely
seeking participants’ views.
Participants were given an information sheet detailing the above, along with an overview
of the research and nature of the data collection. Participants were asked to sign to say
they had read and understood this. To this end, ethical approval was granted by the
Institute of Education (IOE) Faculty Research Ethics Committee on 1st July, 2014.
2.2.3 Overall approach to coding, and phase one coding and analysis
Following the three interviews, all of which were audio-recorded, I transcribed the data
ready for coding. It has previously been argued (Birks & Mills, 2013) that recording
interviews is inefficient, producing large amounts of predominantly irrelevant data;
however, more recent literature (Alsaawi, 2014; Robson, 2015) has highlighted the value
in recording as a means to ensure accuracy and completeness in data, something seen
as contributing to the validity of research. In addition, the retention of the original
recordings as raw data is highlighted by Robson (2015) as a valuable part of the research
audit trail.
In my case, although the transcription process was time-intensive, the interviews
produced a rich dataset. It is worth noting that my transcriptions focussed solely on the
spoken word rather than the use of body language, gesture and tone of voice. Whilst this
is a limitation of the study, I felt this form of transcription was appropriate given the nature
of the discussion, particularly with the interviews taking place on a one-to-one basis. Had
the interviews taken place in larger groups, or had, for example, lessons been observed
as part of phase one, greater focus on that beyond the spoken word, such as gesture and
tone of voice would have benefited from greater transcription and analysis.
In consideration of the research design discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1), coding
offered an effective way to analyse data gathered. Charmaz (2014, p. 109) states that
coding offers the opportunity to ‘stop and ask analytic questions of the data’, and that
such questions ‘not only further our understanding of studied life but also help us direct
subsequent data-gathering toward the analytic issues we are defining’. Gibbs (2007, p.
38) defines coding as involving ‘identifying and recording one or more passages of text or
other data items…that, in some sense, exemplify the same theoretical or descriptive idea
– the code’. My overall approach to coding both phase one and phase two was similar,
therefore, much discussed here, applies to Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6) below.
22
My approach to coding was one of thematic analysis, coding data for a range of pertinent
themes. Given my flexible approach to the research design, Robson (2015) identifies
thematic coding as a similarly flexible means of data analysis. More recent literature
(Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017; Robson, 2015) has also identified the benefits of
thematic analysis when dealing with large amounts of data, particularly when time for
analysis is limited, something which was even more relevant in phase two. Thematic
coding analysis has previously been identified (Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012) as
being advantageous in ensuring that the interpretation of themes generated, is rooted in
the data itself. This form of coding and analysis supports my position within an
interpretivist paradigm.
It should be noted, that there was also an element of open coding in my analysis, that is
interpreting in addition to summarising data, an approach closely aligned to Grounded
Theory. Moving from both summarising and describing data, to interpreting it, became
more important as the coding process developed. That said, it has been argued (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) that due to the flexible nature of thematic coding analysis, interpretation of
data is always a possible option.
Following transcription of the interview recordings (see example in Appendix A), the
process of thematic coding the data was an emergent one. There are many different
approaches to coding, and different terms are often applied to similar concepts. There is
some agreement that coding, whilst an emergent process, tends to include two distinct
phases. These have been referred to as first- and second-cycle (Skjott Linneberg &
Korsgaad, 2019) and first- and second-level (Robson, 2015, p. 475), though Charmaz
(2014) applies the terms ‘initial’ and ‘focussed’ to the two stages. Similarly, ‘code’,
‘category’, ‘label’ and ‘theme’ are all often used interchangeably (Robson, 2015, pp. 474–
475).
Robson (2015, p. 477) states that ‘it is absolutely crucial that you thoroughly immerse
yourself in the data as a first step’. As part of the coding process, the initial phase which
took place before the first-cycle, was one of familiarisation, that is, reading and rereading
the data. Charmaz (2014, p. 115) refers to this stage as ‘entering an interactive analytic
space’, reinforcing the need to interact with the data on an ongoing basis, an important
part of the coding process elsewhere identified (Nowell et al., 2017; Skjott Linneberg &
Korsgaad, 2019). As part of this initial familiarisation stage, Robson (2015) encourages
noting down initial thoughts and ideas, and as described in Chapter 2 (section 2.1) the act
of memoing was important here.
23
Rather than a strict inductive approach to coding, where the codes and themes are
derived purely from data itself, my existing knowledge and experience, coupled with
knowledge of the context and an appreciation of the background literature, allowed me to
approach the coding with an idea of what might emerge. Robson (2015, pp. 475–476)
suggests that ‘prior engagement with the literature can enhance your analysis by
sensitizing you to features of the data that might otherwise be missed’. Indeed, one of the
criticisms levelled at thematic coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006), has been that it is easy for
important points to be missed, reiterating once again, the need for the coding process to
be an ‘active concern’ (Robson, 2015, p. 475). As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1)
above, I approached the research from within the interpretivist paradigm, and
acknowledge that in consideration of that, I was not merely a neutral observer. This
means that the initial literature review and background to the study explored in Chapter 1
(section 1.3), has influenced the coding process.
Inhabiting a space between an inductive and deductive approach, I did not seek to look
only for these pre-existing themes or to apply them as a template to the data, rather these
emerged from the data alongside other new and developing ideas. As with the potential
influence of background literature highlighted in the previous paragraph, I acknowledge
that the codes result from my interpretation of the data. Another researcher viewing the
data through a different interpretative lens might have coded in an entirely different way.
As stated by Charmaz (2014), my codes are influenced by my own perspectives and
professional experience, which presents itself as a limitation to this study. I also
acknowledge that the codes I generated are my interpretation of a group of people in a
particular context, and it is not possible to generate either a universal theory or to
generalise based on these.
Following a period of familiarisation, initial, or first-cycle coding took place. Each interview
was coded individually using a series of coloured pens to identify themes. Other thoughts,
ideas and questions which emerged were also noted on the transcripts (see example in
Appendix B). I did not, as is often the case in open coding, code pre-determined chunks of
data throughout, for example, by individual word, line or sentence. Instead, the amount of
data coded varied depending on its relevance to the theme. In some cases, for example, it
was a whole sentence, and in other cases several words. Rather than being a closed
process, thematic coding enabled me to move back and forth between the data coded as
themes emerged. As the coding process developed, I was also able to move between
individual interview transcripts, thus revisiting previous data and codes as part of an
iterative process. Whilst it is a potential limitation that the amount coded was not
standardised throughout, coding in this way offered a means to capture what Thomas
(2009, p. 76) refers to as the ‘naturalistic’ sense of the data.
24
Following the generation of initial codes, the next stage involved a second-cycle of coding.
Robson (2015, p. 481) identifies the task here to be to ‘sort the different codes into
potential themes and to put together all the relevant coded data extracts within the themes
you identify’, Charmaz (2014, p. 140) suggests that this focussed coding stage ‘means
concentrating on what your initial codes say and the comparisons you make with and
between them’. As well as identifying repetition and similarities, Robson (2015) also
highlights the need to identify differences and missing data. As part of this process, I
undertook to compare data coded across the three interviews (see example in Appendix
C). This was a useful method of beginning to group similar codes together and to compare
responses. For example, I had coded ‘financial considerations’ and ‘logistical
considerations’ individually; however, through comparison of interview transcripts, it was
clear that these two were inherently interlinked, and thus more effective as a single code.
As part of this second-stage coding, two overarching themes emerged: codes which
related to the values, beliefs and motivation of teachers (the ‘why’); and codes which
related specifically to curriculum and pedagogy (the ‘what’ and ‘how’). Whilst these two
themes link closely to the initial questions posed in the interviews as discussed in Chapter
2 (section 2.2.1), the coding process also generated a number of new areas of interest.
For example, teachers spoke openly about their feeling of professional responsibility when
teaching, an idea which had not previously emerged and not something I had considered.
This introduced the idea of what ‘should’ be taught, a theme which I explored further in
phase two. The two themes along with their codes are outlined in Table 1.
25
Themes
Codes
Values, beliefs and
motivations
• Career choice;
• Enjoyment of teaching and the varied nature of the
profession;
• The role of teachers in ‘making a difference’;
• Primary reasons for their choice to teach privately;
• Logistical and financial considerations affecting
private teacher’s decisions;
• Business autonomy in private teaching;
• Reasons for feeling part of, or not part of a wider
profession;
• Views on collaboration and interaction with other
teachers.
Curriculum and
pedagogy
• Teacher control;
• Choice over lesson content;
• The effect of received teaching on lesson content;
• External influences affecting lesson content;
• Professional responsibility and its relationship to
lesson content.
Table 1: Themes and codes resulting from the interviews conducted in phase one.
Following the collection and coding of the interview data, I undertook further review of
literature as dictated by the data gathered. As discussed in Chapter 3, there were
elements of the literature which both reinforced and contradicted the participants’
responses. On reflection, I felt that the interviews alone were not sufficient to answer the
research questions. I considered the option of conducting further interviews, both with the
original teachers, and with additional teachers. The object of this would have been to
explore further some of the issues with the original teachers, but also to see how their
responses compared to those of others.
Whilst this approach would have generated further rich data, and indeed, would have
added to my understanding of the subject area, I was concerned that it would not give me
a sufficiently broad set of data for discussion. The practicalities of interviewing meant that
there was a strong possibility that teachers would be located in a similar geographical
area, even if different to the original participants, thus creating the potential for bias and
adding to the existing limitations of this phase. Similarly, this method of data collection is
likely to attract only those participants willing to be interviewed. I felt that there were other
26
teachers who may be willing to participate if data were gathered anonymously. An
interview also requires teachers to commit more time than might be necessary for a
survey.
It was at this stage that a large-scale survey provided a way forward in gathering the
views of a far greater sample of teachers which was not based on participants’ willingness
to participate in interviews or limited by accessibility of geographical location or
availability. Indeed, as Robson says (2015, p. 133), ‘as you change or clarify the research
questions, different means of data collection may be called for’. As discussed in Chapter 2
(section 2.1), my flexible approach to research design allowed for this. Robson (2015, p.
158) suggests that by expanding the research framework in this way, it can help ‘counter
all threats to validity’; however, he also cautions that ‘it opens up possibilities of
discrepancies and disagreements’. I acknowledge that this expansion framework
introduces the potential for bias, as the survey construction, coding and analysis were
influenced by data gathered in phase one. Whilst there were advantages of expanding the
research in this way, as stated by Robson (2015), imposing such a framework can affect
the overall interpretation. Ongoing reflection, memoing and maintaining an audit trail was
an important part of the process, and the eventual discussion of outcomes is based on
data from both phrases.
2.3 Phase two
Following the interviews and their subsequent coding and analysis, I embarked on
undertaking a large-scale online survey. In this section, I will discuss the background to
surveys as a data collection tool, and the way in which I applied this to my own study. I will
also discuss how the survey data was coded and analysed.
2.3.1 Survey design and construction
The object of the survey was to compare the data gathered in phase one with the views of
the wider private music teaching population. As Robson (2015, p. 235) says, surveys can
be ‘considered as a secondary method, perhaps administering a questionnaire after
participants have been involved in an experiment’. The reason for choosing a survey as a
means of data collection in the second phase was that it offered a means of sampling the
wider population in a way which provided further opportunities for ‘explanation and
interpretation’ (Robson, 2015, p. 242). In part, the survey was to be confirmatory (Cohen
et al., 2011), in other words, to see whether the views of the three teachers who were
interviewed in phase one were shared by a wider sample of the private teaching
population. As with the interviews, the survey was also designed to explore a range of
27
issues in response not just to the phase one data, but as a result of my increasing
interaction with the literature.
Despite it not always being considered an effective data collection tool for research within
the interpretivist paradigm (Thomas, 2009), a survey will nevertheless gather factual
information, and in particular, data related to attitudes, opinions and beliefs (Cohen et al.,
2011). These were an important part of my study, and a theme which emerged during the
analysis carried out in phase one. Through the gathering of a large bank of data, Cohen et
al. (2011) indicate the results of a confirmatory survey such as this could indicate one of
three potential outcomes: either they could confirm responses gathered in phase one;
contradict them; or indicate a more complex and less confirmatory picture. My role as a
researcher, in analysing and interpreting the data, was to explore ‘where relationships are
strong and where they are weak or non-existent’ (Robson, 2015, p. 242).
Despite the obvious benefits, there are inevitably limitations to my survey design. Robson
(2015, p. 239) describes survey respondents as ‘uninvolved’, going on to suggest their
answers ‘owe more to some unknown mixture of politeness, boredom, desire to be seen
in a good light etc. than their true feelings, beliefs or behaviour’. With that in mind, it is not
possible to know how truthful respondents were. That said, Cohen et al. (2011, p. 377)
argue that in contrast, ‘respondents are not passive data providers, and this raises a
number of ethical issues, as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.2) below. I included
classifying questions last, something which Lewin (2011) highlights as beneficial, as
respondents may view these as the most personal. This allays some of the concerns
identified by Cohen et al. (2011), that surveys are an invasion of privacy, something
already identified as a barrier to research with private teachers (Robinson, 2010). Both
suggest this can affect the way respondents answer. This has the potential to affect the
way teachers responded to the survey questions. As highlighted by Robson (2015), there
is often, in surveys, a discrepancy between attitude and behaviour, something I discuss in
Chapter 4 (section 4.4.5) in relation to espoused theories and theories-in-use. That said,
Robson (2015) also suggests that in contrast, anonymous surveys can encourage
frankness.
It is the case that surveys do not offer the opportunity to probe deeper into respondents’
answers, as was the case in phase one. Outcomes are dependent on respondents’
interpretation and understanding of the questions, and it is not possible to clarify their
answers or explore further their perceived definition of words used. It is important to stress
that responses represent the views of a particular group of people at a particular point in
time. Whilst the same survey could be undertaken with a different group of teachers,
outcomes may be different. That group of teachers may well teach in different contexts at
28
a different point in time, and similarly, they may interpret the questions differently. Even if
the survey was administered to the same group of teachers as in this study, responses
could be different. Teaching contexts may have changed, people’s values and beliefs can
change over time, and the social conditions in the wider world may be different. Whilst
these may be considered limitations to the reliability and validity of the survey, they are an
important aspect of research from within an interpretivist paradigm. Indeed, Thomas
(2009, p. 101) states that neither reliability or validity are the ‘ground rules for
interpretative research’, and rather, outcomes should be valued as insights into a
particular group of people.
The questions in the survey were designed to build on the data gathered in phase one. As
stated by Robson (2015, p. 243), ‘what goes into the pot, that is, which variables you seek
information on, is determined by pilot work where potential mechanisms are suggested’, in
my case, the interviews conducted in phase one. The coding of phase one data, and the
subsequent grouping of those codes into two overarching themes provided a basis for the
generation of the survey questions. I acknowledge that my choice of questions inherently
affects both responses and my interpretation of those. Different questions and alternative
wordings of questions might have yielded different responses.
Firstly, the aim of the questions was to explore the values and beliefs held by private
teachers, for example, those related to their definition of private teaching, how they
viewed this type of teaching within a wider professional context, and their underlying
motivation for engaging in teaching of this kind. Secondly, a number of questions were
designed specifically to explore private teachers’ views on and understanding of
curriculum and pedagogy, in other words, the issues raised in the interviews and coded
under the second theme. Given that a survey of this type is a major undertaking, I felt it
was prudent to also ask a number of classifying questions regarding age, gender,
geographical location and career choice. These questions allowed me to situate and seek
to interpret private teachers’ responses within a wider social context.
In order to align with the interview dataset, participants must have been undertaking some
private music teaching, though they may range from those who teach privately alongside
other work (as was the case in phase one, and which may be music- or non-music-
related) to those who teach solely on a private basis. In respect of this, participants were
asked a screening question before completing the main body of the survey. Although the
survey focussed primarily on the UK (which reflects the means available to distribute it), it
gathered data worldwide. The reason for this was that there was the potential to compare
responses from teachers in different countries, which, although not necessarily the aim of
this project, could offer options for future use of the data. As it happened, 82% of
29
respondents were based in the UK, so it was not possible to make meaningful
comparisons between answers on a worldwide basis. Whilst having an awareness of the
country which participants were from was useful in underpinning my overall understanding
of the responses, it did not form part of the final analysis. Therefore, it is a limitation of this
study that it focuses predominantly on UK-based teachers, and the situation abroad may
be quite different.
The survey was made available online in order to reach the widest possible number of
teachers, and to minimise costs with production and administration. I disagree with
Robson’s (2015, p. 240) assertion that internet surveys have a ‘low response rate’;
however, it was important to consider this as part of the overall design. Participants were
required to self-administer and self-report the survey; on this basis, questions were made
as clear and easy to understand as possible, something which was evaluated as part of
the pilot survey discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.3.) below. Although self-reporting
introduces the potential for bias (Cohen et al., 2011; Robson, 2015), for example, over- or
under-reporting, it was necessary to administer the survey in this way in order to obtain
the largest possible dataset. Researcher-reporting would have been prohibitive in terms of
time and cost and would have been unlikely to generate as large and diverse a dataset. In
order to reduce the degree of bias, the importance of question wording cannot be
overstated, and this was one of the reasons, as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), for
the initial piloting of the survey.
It was also necessary when considering the survey, to ensure the highest response rate
possible. A poor response rate was likely to arise through the wording of and ability to
answer questions posed. As mentioned above, the ability to respond to the survey
requires careful wording of the questions which enabled teachers to respond with ease. It
was also necessary to consider the overall style and layout of the survey, primarily to
ensure that its completion did not become too onerous a task. Research suggests that in
internet surveys, it is beneficial to keep layout and presentation simple and
straightforward, with advanced page layouts unlikely to translate to a greater number of
responses (Cohen et al., 2011). Equally, limiting questions which require answers to be
typed in, in favour of tick boxes and similar response methods, was found to be
advantageous in internet surveys (Cohen et al., 2011). Keeping the introduction short, and
limited to one screen, along with careful consideration of the opening question, are both
important in retaining participants’ interest and encouraging retention throughout the
survey (Cohen et al., 2011). By using a third-party, commercially available survey
platform, problems over browser compatibility, layout issues and software use can be
avoided or limited, hence my decision to use the freely-available Google Forms as a
means of distribution (Cohen et al., 2011). The decisions I took regarding the format and
30
wording of questions has the potential to influence responses, and indeed, some
participants might have preferred to answer particular questions in a different way had
another option been given.
As I found in the background literature discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.3) and the data
gathered in phase one, it was unclear how many private teachers were operating within
the UK; thus, identifying how representative the sample might prove to be as part of the
wider teaching population, was problematic. Whilst this was the case, I also needed to
exercise judgement (Cohen et al., 2011), and by sampling the largest possible number,
this could, in fact, go some way to establishing the number and breadth of private
teachers operating in the UK and overseas. Striving for a large sample can allay some
concern about the problems of volunteer sampling being unreliable in internet surveys
(Cohen et al., 2011), although, as suggested by Thomas (2009, p. 101), regardless of the
sample size, each individual has ‘integrity in their own right’.
As has been identified in previous research (Burwell, 2005; Nafisi, 2013), because private
teaching is generally hidden from view, it is necessary to accept that there will be a subset
of the private instrumental teaching population, for example, those who do not belong to a
professional association, read websites or are active on social media, who will not be
reached. The fact that the survey was most likely to reach those teachers active and
engaged with online communities is a limitation of this study.
My survey was to be essentially ‘cross-sectional’, in other words, it produces a ‘snapshot’
of that particular sample at one moment in time (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 267). Although
cross-sectional samples may not show developing data over a period of time, they can be
used to compare data gathered in a small sample (e.g. through interviews) with the wider
population; additionally, the focus of my research was not to measure changes over time,
thus, neither longitudinal nor trend studies were appropriate at this stage (Cohen et al.,
2011). A cross-sectional study enabled me to quickly and cost-effectively gather a large
sample of data which could be used to compare with previously gathered data (Cohen et
al., 2011). As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), this means that the data gathered,
both in phase one and phase two are a social construction and are not an exact picture of
the world (Charmaz, 2014).
2.3.2 Ethical considerations
The primary ethical consideration is one of ‘informed consent’, in other words,
respondents had the opportunity to withdraw at any time, or to not answer certain
31
questions if they choose not to (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 377). In the introduction to the
survey, I made it clear that:
• The survey should take no longer than 15-25 minutes to complete;
• Participation was voluntary: no one was obliged to take part;
• Participants could withdraw and stop completing the survey at any point;
• Participants had the option to omit any questions they did not wish to answer;
• The data collected would be treated with full confidentiality, and participants would
not be identifiable in any academic writing or publications.
By making the survey available for completion online, rather than through email collection,
I also ensured anonymity. It was also important to ensure that the participants felt that the
survey was bona fide, thus including my institution’s logo and affiliation was necessary.
An additional consideration was to ask that if teachers wished to refer to particular pupils
in their answers, they did this in such a way as to preserve the anonymity of those pupils.
In one case, I made the ethical decision to remove words from one quoted respondent as
I found it concerning that they referred to their pupils using such language, even if not
identifying them by name.
To this end, ethical approval was granted by the Conservatoires UK (CUK)
10
Ethics
Committee on 10th November, 2015, and participants were made aware of this approval
on the introduction page of the survey.
2.3.3 Pilot survey
Following ethical approval and having drafted the survey, it was necessary to pilot it with a
small group of teachers to test the methodology. The primary aim of the pilot survey was
to ensure the intended meaning of the questions was understood, and that the procedures
for administering the questionnaire were effective (Robson, 2015). I initially asked for 10
participants to pilot the survey and they were recruited via social media. These
participants were also asked to feed back any comments or concerns they had about the
layout, ease of completion, length, and wording of questions.
In response to this pilot, a number of points and suggestions were made. Most notably,
some people commented on the time required to complete the survey. I had initially
suggested 10-15 minutes, and several felt more time was required. This was therefore
10
Conservatoires UK.
32
adjusted to 15-25 minutes for the main survey distribution. In addition to comments about
the length of time taken, a number of other suggestions were made about wording of
questions and possible answers. One respondent suggested that providing a ‘don’t know’
option would be useful; however, I made the decision to retain the options of ‘yes’ and
‘no’, and the option to simply not answer the question. Another commented that many
answers were more complex than ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and I ensured that I provided sufficient
opportunities for additional comments to be made throughout. The small number of
adjustments were made before the main survey was distributed. The actual content and
questions remained essentially the same.
2.3.4 Coding and analysis of the pilot survey
For the purposes of the pilot survey, I selected several questions to code in order to
assess the suitability of both the coding process and to gain an overview of the types and
quality of responses received. The process I employed here was essentially the same as
that used in the coding of phase one data, discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3) above.
The responses were printed out and coded by hand using highlighter pens in a similar
way (see example in Appendix D). At this stage, I was looking not only to see if the
themes and codes generated by the interview data could be applied here, but also to see
if any new themes emerged. The thematic coding of the main survey data subsequently
evolved from this and is discussed below. It was clear from the breadth and depth of
responses in the pilot survey, that hand-coding would not be possible, and during the time
the main survey was live, I investigated alternatives to this as discussed in Chapter 2
(section 2.3.6) below.
2.3.5 Main survey
Following the pilot survey, the main survey (see Appendix E), with the small number of
amendments, was made live. The primary means of distributing the main survey was
through social media, most notably through some of the Facebook discussion groups of
which I am a member (e.g. Piano Network UK, Curious Piano Teachers etc.). It was also
regularly ‘advertised’ on my own Facebook page and my Twitter account. In addition to
social media, I asked a number of relevant organisations (e.g. ISM, Musicians’ Union,
AOTOS
11
etc.) to distribute the survey through their email lists and magazines where
appropriate. All those approached were willing to do this, except the Musicians’ Union who
refused on the basis that distributing the survey could result in ‘member fatigue’. As
previously mentioned in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.1) above, it is a limitation of this study that
11
The Association of Teachers of Singing
33
the survey most likely reached those teachers already actively engaged in online
communities and professional organisations.
Within a couple of days, 50 responses had been received, and it became clear that this
was going to provide a thoroughly rich dataset. As time went on, the question arose of
when the survey should be closed. After three months, 500 responses had been received
and I made the decision to close the survey. At this stage, a large amount of data had
been gathered, and any further responses would have made the task of coding and
analysis almost impossible within the scope and timeframe of this research project.
2.3.6 Phase two coding and analysis
Four hundred and eight six responses (486) were received for the main survey
12
: these
were received from music teachers working on a private basis worldwide, although
predominantly in the UK. Thus, a large and valuable dataset has been created which
required analysis and interpretation. I made the decision to apply the same process of
thematic coding employed in phase one, and the principles of that, as discussed in
Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3) above, apply here too. Although the overall approach to coding
remained the same, it was necessary to make some adjustments to the practicalities of
the coding process itself. Thematic coding analysis has been identified (Nowell et al.,
2017) as a valuable analytical tool when faced with a large dataset; however, it was clear
that following the pilot survey, the manual coding process I had employed in phase one
was not feasible. In consideration of this, I decided to use the NVivo software for the
coding process as I shall discuss below. To avoid loss of data, I chose not to undertake
Component Analysis, for as stated by Thomas (2009), in interpretative research, every
element of data can offer valuable insights. This may, however, be seen as a limitation of
this study.
Although the process of coding remained similar to phase one, that is, it was conducted in
two cycles, due to the large amount of data generated in phase two, I also made use of
Bazeley’s (2013, p. 15) four-stage framework: ‘Read and Reflect, Explore and Play, Code
and Connect, Review and Refine’. This framework provided some additional suggestions
which offered a more accessible means of dealing with the large amount of qualitative
data. I have discussed the coding of phase two data below under those four headings:
12
Although 500 responses were received, 14 were discounted as they were either
duplicates or blank submissions.
34
1. Read and Reflect
Once again, the initial phase was one of familiarisation. Robson (2015, p. 475) highlights
the importance of starting the process of analysis at an early stage, ‘looking out for issues
of interest…including possible patterns or themes’. In the case of phase two, this process
commenced once the survey was made live, as I was able to skim-read responses as
they came in. As responses were received, I was able periodically to download data in a
spreadsheet format, enabling me to read and reflect on it offline. This gave me a general
overview, not just of the content of the responses, but also of the quality. It allowed me to
reflect and see which themes were emerging, and to consider those in conjunction both
with the literature and the data already gathered. For me, this was an important part of the
process, especially when faced with such a large dataset as that which I had gathered.
Robson (2015) cautions researchers against skimping on this stage, and for me, this initial
familiarisation took place over a period of around three months.
2. Explore and Play
When it was first suggested that I should ‘play’ with the data, this struck me to be at odds
with the strict, evidence-based nature of research. But, as Bazeley (2013, p. 15) says,
‘play games with your data. Explore and play with possibilities. Doing so will spur your
imagination and help you to see and test connections’. This phase of exploration was a
useful extension of the familiarisation process discussed above. As Charmaz (2014, p.
116) suggests, this is a time to ‘see what you can learn’. A useful feature of the NVivo
software, was the ability to explore the word frequency used in particular responses. This
was a useful mechanism for ‘playing’ with the data in terms of gaining an overview of the
kinds of words being used in responses. Figure 1 gives an example of a ‘word cloud’
showing the frequency of words used in the entire dataset. The larger the type size, the
more frequently the word appears in the dataset.
35
Figure 1: Frequency of word use in entire main survey dataset.
Unsurprisingly, ‘teacher’, ‘music’, and ‘teaching’ are the most frequently-used words here.
At this stage, it was interesting to note the appearance of other words such as ‘needs’,
‘individual’ and ‘ability’. I was able to produce a similar word cloud based on the
responses to just a single question. Figure 2 shows the frequency of words used in
relation to the question ‘if someone asked you what being a private teacher involved, what
would you say?’:
36
Figure 2: Frequency of word use in respondents’ answers to the question ‘if someone
asked you what being a private teacher involved, what would you say?’
Here, the appearance of words such as ‘patience’, planning’ and ‘preparation’ were of
note, and later became codes in their own right. Whilst it might be argued that these are
merely ‘pretty pictures’, they offer a useful visual representation of the data which gave
me an overview of some of the key themes emerging. With such a large dataset, being
able to explore the data in this way was crucial to the familiarisation and exploration
process.
3. Code and Connect
This stage of coding is akin to the first cycle of coding discussed in Chapter 2 (section
2.2.3), and my approach was the same, that was to undertake thematic coding of data. It
is important to note that as with the data gathered in phase one, I did not approach coding
this dataset by seeking to apply pre-defined codes. Whilst by this stage, my awareness of
the data and literature was increasing, the process allowed for the derivation of codes
from data itself. Whilst I expected common codes and themes to emerge, there was still a
desire to explore those ideas which had not previously come through. As there were some
quantitative elements to my survey, coding of every question was not required, and
37
indeed, NVivo was able to automatically detect the questions which contained ‘classifying
data’.
When I embarked on undertaking the main survey, I did not expect to generate as many
responses as I did, and I did not expect the responses, particularly those entered into text
boxes, to be as lengthy as they were. Whilst this is a credit to the teachers who took part,
in consideration of the word count of this thesis and the time constraints imposed, I had to
make the difficult decision to code only certain questions. In particular consideration of the
phase one data, I selected those most relevant to my original research questions. It is
inevitably the case that coding different questions, or multiple questions and comparing
answers would have offered both different and additional insights. This is a clear limitation
to this study because analysing responses to other questions may have enhanced or
challenged my interpretation; however, as discussed in Chapter 9 (section 9.4), the
dataset has provided much scope for future research and analysis. In summary, including
the classifying questions mentioned above, Table 2 shows the main survey questions
coded, and the chapters in which responses are discussed:
Questions coded
Discussed in
Questions 2-7
Chapter 5
Questions 26-33
Chapter 6
Questions 37-38
Chapter 7
Table 2: Questions coded in the main survey.
Whilst in phase one I had coded by hand, NVivo offered a similar mechanism, but one
more suited to dealing with a large number of qualitative responses. As with phase one,
whilst I retained the original raw data, NVivo provided a means to maintain an audit trail of
the coding process. These are things which Robson (2015) highlights as being of
particular importance in consideration of the validity of research, especially where a
flexible design has been used.
Having made a decision about which question responses I would code, I used the NVivo
software to highlight relevant portions of text. As with the analysis in phase one, I did not
undertake a word-for-word, or line-by-line analysis, and the amount of data coded varies.
Again, the generation of codes was an emergent one, and indeed, one of the advantages
of the NVivo software was the ability to refine, and later connect and merge codes. Figure
3 shows an example screenshot of the NVivo coding in practice. It demonstrates the way
38
in which individual answers to questions (‘References’) can be read and highlighted, with
the highlighted pieces of text being added to an emerging list of codes (‘Nodes’).
Figure 3: Example of NVivo coding of survey data.
Whilst the software is not a replacement for manual understanding and analysis, it is more
likely to:
‘find and include in a query procedure, for example, every recorded use of a term
or every coded instance of a concept, it ensures a more complete set of data for
interpretation than might occur when working manually.’
(Bazeley & Jackson, 2013, p. 3)
It is worth noting that whilst the facility is offered, I did not use any of the ‘auto-code’
features of NVivo in my coding and analysis. Appendix F gives some examples of data
being coded in NVivo as common themes began to emerge. They show the way in which
portions of data (‘References’) have been allotted to a particular code (‘Node’), in this
case related to the ability to set boundaries and ability to communicate, both discussed in
Chapter 5.
4. Review and Refine
Following coding of the data, after reviewing those codes, I made the decision, as in
phase one, to combine a number of codes which were very similar, or closely linked.
Whilst NVivo offered the mechanism to eventually merge codes, the process of reviewing
39
and refining them was done manually. Bazeley (2013, p. 192) suggests the following
approach for constructing themes from codes: ‘cut out (physically or electronically)
exemplar quotes or expressions and arrange these into piles of things that go together.
Name the piles to generate themes’. I found this manual approach to be an immersive
experience as it included another layer of interaction with data. For each of the coded
questions, data for each code were printed out (such as in Appendix F), and through a
process of cutting and rearranging, were manually arranged into piles of common themes.
The eventual grouping of themes and codes is given at the start of each chapter in which
they are discussed, as outlined in Figure 5 above.
It is worth noting that throughout this thesis, some quotes are used more than once to
illustrate different points, often in different sections. Even as a result of narrowing down
the codes, there was still a degree of overlap between them. Although this presented an
added challenge in terms of the analysis, it also illustrates the naturalistic way in which so
many areas are interconnected, as I have explored more extensively in Chapter 5.
Having discussed my approach to research design and to the coding and analysis of data,
in Chapter 3, I will consider the outcomes of the interviews conducted in phase one.
40
3. Phase One: Interviews
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I provide a summary of the data gathered in the three interviews
conducted with private teachers in phase one. Following thematic coding as discussed in
Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), the data have been summarised and analysed for emergent
themes. The discussion is divided into two main themes: material which relates to the
values, believes and motivations of private teachers; and material relating to the
curriculum and pedagogy in private teaching. Alongside these two themes, a series of
individual codes are listed, and the numbering relates to the section below under which
these are discussed. These are shown in Table 3 below:
Themes
Codes
3.2 Values, beliefs
and motivations
3.2.1 Career choice;
3.2.2 Enjoyment of teaching and the varied nature of
the profession;
3.2.3 The role of teachers in ‘making a difference’;
3.2.4 Primary reasons for their choice to teach
privately;
3.2.5 The ability to choose who to teach privately;
3.2.6 Logistical and financial considerations affecting
private teachers’ decisions;
3.2.7 Business autonomy in private teaching;
3.2.8 Reasons for feeling part of, or not part of a
wider profession;
3.2.9 Views on collaboration and interaction with
other teachers.
3.3 Curriculum and
pedagogy
3.3.1 Teacher control;
3.3.2 Choice over lesson content;
3.3.3 The effect of received teaching on lesson
content;
3.3.4 External influences affecting lesson content;
3.3.5 Professional responsibility and its relationship to
lesson content.
Table 3: Coding of data in phase one.
41
Before discussing the interview data, I asked the three teachers to provide a short ‘pen
portrait’ of themselves and their teaching to give some background to the discussion:
3.1.1 Teacher A
Teacher A teaches singing from home in the south of England. She currently has nine
pupils aged between seven and 60. She also teaches music theory to one pupil, aged 13.
She teaches 16 singing pupils at two higher education institutions in London, age range
18-70. She also runs a youth choir and a community choir. She studied music at the Royal
Conservatoire of Scotland, gaining a BMus(Hons) degree with Community Music Diploma,
before gaining a Graduate Diploma from the Royal College of Music, London. Continuing
professional development has included music theatre voice training with Mary King, and
teaching singing to primary age children with The Voices Foundation.
3.1.2 Teacher B
Teacher B has been teaching piano from home in the south of England for five years,
following a career in finance. She currently teaches 45 pupils on a one-to-one basis, 30 of
whom are aged 3-18 and 15 are adults. She has a DipLCM
13
in piano performance and
the CertPTC
14
, as well as a PGCE
15
in an unrelated subject.
3.1.3 Teacher C
Following a career in accountancy, Teacher C teaches singing, recorder and flute both
from home and at schools in the south of England. She currently teaches 47 pupils on a
one-to-one basis, ranging in age from five to mid-60s. She has an LTCL
16
in singing
performance, a DipABRSM
17
in vocal teaching, and a DipABRSM in recorder teaching.
13
The DipLCM (Diploma of the London College of Music) is the first-level diploma offered
by LCM Examinations, and is accredited in the UK as requiring a standard equivalent to
the end of the first year of an undergraduate degree (LCM Examinations, 2017).
14
The CertPTC (Certificate of the Piano Teachers’ Course) is the non-accredited award
achieved at the end of the Piano Teachers’ Course run by the European Piano Teachers’
Association (EPTA) in the UK (EPTA UK, 2016)
15
The PGCE (Postgraduate Certificate in Education) is generally a postgraduate teaching
qualification leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).
16
The LTCL (Licentiate Diploma of Trinity College London) is the second-level diploma
offered by Trinity College London, and is accredited in the UK as requiring a standard
equivalent to the end of the third year of an undergraduate degree (Trinity College
London, 2017, p. 12)
17
The DipABRSM (Diploma of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music) is the
first-level diploma offered by ABRSM, and is accredited in the UK as requiring a standard
equivalent to the end of the first year of an undergraduate degree (ABRSM, 2017).
REDACTION: instruments
taught
REDACTION: qualifications
REDACTION: qualifications
REDACTION: qualifications
42
She takes occasional ad-hoc lessons and attends masterclasses and workshops. She is a
member of several online discussion forums and is currently working towards a
DipABRSM in flute teaching and an LRSM in singing performance.
3.2 Values, beliefs and motivations of private teachers
3.2.1 Career choice
Participants spoke openly about their reasons for choosing one-to-one instrumental
teaching as part of their career, though in all three cases, it was clear that this route was
one which had evolved, mainly through happenstance, and often as an extension of their
own received teaching. Participant A had started teaching relatively young (age 16) as an
alternative to a ‘Saturday job’, whilst the other two had started teaching following careers
in areas unrelated to music. One of these career changes came about in response to
being asked to help a friend’s child with their piano lessons (Participant B), and the other
as an extension of their own private lessons, and through their own teacher (Participant
C). The former of these two made the career change following acceptance of voluntary
redundancy. Previous research (Taylor & Hallam, 2011) recognised that some individuals
come to teaching having previously worked in a different career area. As part of this
change, research found these teachers often demonstrated greater enthusiasm for
teaching, drawing effectively on their previous life experiences.
Effectively, all three teachers had found themselves engaged in teaching through little
other than happenstance; they are not alone, for at one time or another, most musicians
find themselves involved in some form of teaching or instruction, though not necessarily
individual or even private teaching (Lehmann, Sloboda, & Woody, 2007). Much research
(Bennett & Bridgstock, 2014; Creech, 2010; Creech et al., 2008; Latukefu & Ginsborg,
2018; Nafisi, 2013; Teague & Smith, 2015) suggests that teaching often forms part of a
wider ‘portfolio’ of work. This situation is not unusual, as portfolio careers, defined as ‘a
flexible approach where the sachets of jobs and life can be mixed in different amounts and
in different ways’ (Hopson & Ledger, 2011, p. 4) are now found in other professional areas
unrelated to music. Following the erosion of the ‘job for life’ career, it might be fair to say
‘every job is temporary’ (Hopson & Ledger, 2011, p. 5) where ‘security is not resting on a
relationship with one organisation but on the sheer depth of experience and
resourcefulness an individual has acquired by engaging with a much wider universe’
(Hopson & Ledger, 2011, pp. 5–6).
Many musicians and music educators have always had, to one degree or another, a
portfolio career, and therefore, what is seen as a relatively new phenomenon in wider
REDACTION: qualifications
43
society, is nothing new in the profession. Two out of the three teachers interviewed
(Participants A and C) were engaged as instrumental teachers in an institution, in addition
to their private teaching. Participant A also worked as a performer and was engaged
professionally for recitals and other such work. Overall, participants’ responses reflected a
wider acceptance that musicians and music educators teach as part of a wider portfolio
career. Some of the reasons for choosing to teach, and to teach privately are outlined
below. On balance, all three teachers interviewed had ‘found’ themselves teaching, rather
than having arrived at that state via a pre-planned career pathway.
3.2.2 Enjoyment of teaching and the varied nature of the profession
It should be noted that first and foremost, all three participants were clear in that they
enjoyed their teaching, Participant A saying: ‘I ended up really enjoying it…I enjoy the fact
it’s so varied…I don’t think I could ever get bored of it’; and Participant C saying ‘I’m loving
what I’m doing and it’s just such an almighty change from what I was doing’. The fact that
participants volunteered to take part in this study suggests that the enjoyment they derive
from their teaching is, in some ways, not surprising. That said, I think it is important that
these statements were included, particularly as teachers had not been asked explicitly
about what might be termed the ‘enjoyment factor’.
The varied nature of the job, both in terms of the age and ability range of the pupils being
taught, has been highlighted in previous research, for example, Jorgensen (1986) found
that out of the 15 teachers surveyed, the ages taught ranged from three to 60+, and Mills
(2004) cites an example of a private teaching practice which ranged from a gifted eight
year-old to a lady in her 60s fulfilling a desire to play works by a particular composer. This
was reflected in participants’ responses here.
Participant C, who had also started private teaching as an evolution of their own lessons,
highlighted the varied nature of private teaching, particularly in terms of age range, saying
in schools:
‘they’re all aged between five and 12, all very nicely brought up and well-behaved
pupils who I know will be in a certain place each day and all come to me for nice,
neat half hour, one after the other lessons.’
but privately
‘age ranges are from seven to 88. Some of them come to me here, some of them I
visit. Much wider range of things they want to achieve in their music. School tends
to be an exam factory much more than the private teaching does.’
44
I think it is important to note that all three teachers spoke with a good degree of passion
about their teaching. They were clearly committed to what they did and derived a good
deal of enjoyment and satisfaction from it. The varied nature of the work as indicated
above, coupled with some of the hallmarks below, was one of the primary reasons for
their career ‘choice’ in terms of its continuation and development.
3.2.3 The role of teachers in ‘making a difference’
There was a general consensus that their teaching made a difference to pupils’ lives;
responses included ‘[I] found I was making a difference to people’ and ‘I think it’s probably
something I was, I’m meant to do’ (Participant B). This is reflected in the literature: Mills
(2004, p. 195) cites a teacher who said ‘you can’t look at music as a job, it is a vocation
really’. Similarly, Parkes and Daniel (2013, p. 398) found in their research, that there was
a ‘strong sense of vocation prevalent…and the sense of being “compelled” to do it’.
Participants also highlighted the feeling of privilege at being able to do the job, saying ‘I
think we’re enormously lucky to be able to have that kind of regular contact with our
students…it’s not just the piano, it’s seeing how they grow up’ (Participant B). This is a
hallmark previously identified (Lehmann et al., 2007) as a reason why teachers choose to
teach on a one-to-one basis, as a more close relationship can be formed.
3.2.4 Primary reasons for their decision to teach privately
In terms of private teaching itself, two participants (A and C) taught privately as part of
portfolio careers which included peripatetic instrumental teaching and performing, whilst
one (Participant B) taught solely on a private basis. There were a number of reasons cited
for these choices, including logistical and practical considerations outlined in Chapter 3
(section 3.2.6) below; however, Participant A highlighted the ‘draining’ nature of school-
based instrumental teaching in contrast to private teaching, indicating that she chose to
limit the amount of school-based teaching she did in response to this.
Participant B had not considered going into schools to teach and had generated enough
private pupils for her business to be successful. She thought this decision was mainly
based on the fact that she, herself, had been to a private teacher as a child, so thus it was
a natural extension of this experience. The same teacher highlighted the advantages of
private teaching, saying ‘I want to work for myself. I want to set my own hours, I want to
set my own rates, I want to work at home’. It is interesting to note that she might have
considered going into schools if she had not generated enough business privately,
alluding to teaching in schools as potentially inferior to private teaching.
45
Participant B also highlighted a desire to avoid teaching in institutions because she would
not want that pressure on her from an institution. She went on to say, about private
teaching ‘I’ll get it [pressure], particularly some parents, but, you know, I can deal with
that, but when you get that from the institution that’s employing you, it’s a slightly different
ballgame’. Her responses suggest that although she could see some advantages to
institutional teaching, there was a preference for private teaching. Some of these
preferences appeared to come from her own experience of private teaching, whilst some
were based on perception and pre-conceived ideas about, for example, peripatetic
teaching in schools.
3.2.5 The ability to choose who to teach when teaching privately
One of the factors highlighted as an advantage of private teaching was the ability to
choose who you taught. Participant A said:
‘you can actually choose who you teach. If I was, say, at the schools that I teach, I
can’t refuse anybody, even if they’re completely talentless or I feel that it’s going
nowhere I can’t say “I don’t want to teach you”, you have to, you have to do it. But
if I teach privately at home, I have a choice as to whether I want to teach that
person or not.’
The same teacher went on to highlight the fact that teaching in schools could be draining
due to the fact ‘you’re teaching people that you wouldn’t necessarily want to teach’. One
issue here, and one which is a huge subject in itself, is the definition of talent, or, whether
it is even possible to establish whether someone is talented. Holt (1991, p. 103) goes as
far as to say:
‘it is not our proper business as teachers, certainly not music teachers, to make
decisions and judgements about what people are or are not “capable” of doing. It
is our proper business…to try to find ways to help people do what they want to do.’
Despite this, Participant A’s responses suggest that perceived talent could be a
consideration when choosing who to teach privately.
Similarly, Participant B relished the ability to be able to choose who to teach and who not
to teach, although it was accepted that there was a degree of trial and error in this
approach, and that the choice was made as a result of experience:
‘Interestingly…one of the things I’m actually thinking about saying now is that I
won’t take transfer students, because… I did take a transfer student a year ago
last September who was working towards her Grade 4 and…I just found her very,
very difficult, not as, she’s not a difficult person, she’s a very nice girl, but she
46
wants to do her Grade 4 and again, it’s one of those situations where I’ve learnt so
much about how, what not to do from this experience.’
Whilst private teachers have a good amount of control over a wide variety of aspects of
teaching and business, they also have the ability to choose who to teach. Participants’
responses suggested that in institutional settings, teachers felt obliged to teach whoever
they were presented with, whether they thought them suitable for lessons or not. As
highlighted in these responses, this has the potential to impact on the teacher’s enjoyment
of their work, something identified previously as an important hallmark of their careers.
3.2.6 Logistical and financial considerations affecting private teachers’ decisions
Participants identified a number of factors related to logistics and finance which also
influenced their choice to teach privately. Notably, Participant A identified that at a
practical level, the logistics of teaching privately at home were advantageous, saying ‘you
can fit more people into a shorter space of time rather than travelling elsewhere’.
Participant C identified the problem of timetabling in schools as being a disadvantage,
citing one school she taught at where she was ‘not allowed to teach there during the
school day’ so had to ‘teach there either before or after or at lunchtime’ resulting in
difficulties structuring her day.
Financially, Participant A cited low start-up costs as an advantage of teaching, saying ‘all
you needed was a room and a piano’. She also indicated it would not be possible to rely
on an income purely from performing but said she could live off the income generated
teaching in schools, though chose not to do this.
Although there was acceptance that, as suggested in the literature identified in Chapter 1
(section 1.3), private teaching was not location-specific, and could include travelling to
teach in pupils’ homes, at the present time, all three teachers taught from home. Some of
the logistical considerations appear to impact upon this choice, as do the elements of
teacher control discussed below.
3.2.7 Business autonomy in private teaching
Continually highlighted in terms of private teaching as a business, was the ability to
control a range of issues which, in an institution, may be outside of a teacher’s control.
Issues related to this included the ability for teachers to set their own fees, cancellation
policies, determine how long lessons are, the number of pupils taught, and hours worked.
Despite this, these abilities were not always seen as advantageous, Participant A saying
about one of the schools she taught in, ‘they manage the building I’m working in, they
47
recruit my pupils for me…and if I have a dispute with parents, I can ask the school to
intervene, so they provide a support structure for me’; however, she went on to say
‘overall I am more in control as a private teacher than at school, but there’s not a huge
amount in it’.
It is important to note that a good number of the factors which prompted teachers to teach
privately, were specifically business-related. Other factors focussed primarily on
curriculum and pedagogy discussed in Chapter 3 (section 3.3) below. Whilst these
teachers, in the main, relished their autonomy as a private teacher, they also recognised
its limitations and lack of support network. Participant A, in particular, identified the need
for more business training:
‘at the end of the day, you’re doing that [running a business], and you leave [music
college] with virtually no skills in accountancy or how to deal with certain issues
when they arise… as somebody who is self-employed and trying to make a living,
it’s really important…so I feel that that is an area that I’d love more help and more
support in.’
3.2.8 Reasons for feeling part of or not part of a wider profession
All three teachers were asked how they felt about instrumental teaching as a profession.
The responses were mixed: Participant A, when asked whether she felt she belonged to a
profession, said ‘sometimes I do, and sometimes I don’t’, and Participant B said ‘I do, yes’.
The former felt that it was hard to belong to a profession where there were such a diverse
range of approaches; she went on to say that as a private teacher, she felt even less part
of a profession. The latter said she felt part of a profession, mainly because of her
experience on the EPTA
18
course, though she did say she thought she would have felt
differently had she not had that experience. She also highlighted the fact that ‘the little old
lady who sits round the corner with her cats kind of thing’ was probably less prevalent now
than maybe it was 20 years ago, although again, she felt her view of this was heavily
influenced by the EPTA course. She went on to say that some local teachers advertise
with posters on lampposts which she considered unprofessional. Participant C felt part of
a profession, and generally, felt that when teaching in schools, although she was teaching
on a self-employed basis, she was accepted as one of the instrumental teaching staff at
the school.
18
The Piano Teachers’ Course was run annually by the European Piano Teachers’
Association (EPTA) in the UK, and led to the award of a non-accredited, but
‘professionally-recognised’ certificate (EPTA UK, 2016).
48
3.2.9 Views on collaboration and interaction with other teachers
Mainly in relation to the views of the profession expressed in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.8)
above, participants exhibited mixed feelings about interacting with other teachers. The
benefits of collaboration and interaction are well documented, Aspin (2000, p. 77) saying:
‘We now realise that by collaborating with each other and correcting each others’
work we all, as a group, make progress faster than if we shield our work from each
other.’
A number of key benefits can be found in collaborating with others, notably: sharing,
debating and acknowledging good practice; identifying issues and questions related to
teaching and learning; supporting a rationale for change based on evidence; and
provision of a foundation for future development (V. Young et al., 2003). With private
teachers generally working in isolation, Creech (2010, p. 296) highlights the need for
organisations which allow private teachers to ‘network, share resources and access
professional development opportunities’. Organisations do exist in the form of professional
membership bodies such as the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) and Musicians’
Union (MU), as well as instrument-specific organisations such as the European Piano
Teachers’ Association (EPTA).
As a peripatetic singing teacher in a school, Participant A found it advantageous to be part
of a community of practitioners who supported each other; however, as a private teacher,
she did not feel she craved such a support network, saying:
‘you make your own decisions, and, because there’s nobody else there to witness
what’s going on, so you can’t ask anybody for specific advice because there’s
nobody else there to witness what’s going on.’
Overall, she felt that she would not miss the interaction found working in schools and
would not necessarily seek out such interaction as a private teacher. She felt very much
more conscious when teaching in schools about how she would be viewed by other
teachers, saying ‘if at school people started to drop off…everybody’s going to be thinking,
“why are they all leaving their singing lessons?”’.
Participant B felt that she had gained a lot of support through the EPTA course, and along
with social media and online blogs, felt she had a good network of fellow professionals.
She felt that without those contacts, it would be a very isolated job, and one she felt she
would not enjoy as much without such contacts. Participants A and C highlighted the
importance of having their own teachers to act as both mentors and ‘sounding boards’.
Both were grateful to be able to ask their own teachers about matters relating to their own
49
pupils, and where necessary, to seek a second opinion. In that respect, Participant C, in
particular, highlighted the benefits of continuing to take lessons as a teacher:
‘I’m fortunate that because I still take lessons, and in particular, I’m having regular
violin lessons, there is a teacher that I talk to a lot, and we discuss teaching issues
a lot. We share a number of pupils who go to her for violin and me for singing, and
so we can discuss issues with these particular pupils and so on.’
These mixed responses, do, in the main, reflect existing writing on the subject. Indeed,
Holmes (2006) suggests that it is this isolation which means private teachers feel they do
not belong to a ‘profession’. From the interviews undertaken, responses suggest that
although private teachers may feel isolated, this was not necessarily a prerequisite of
wanting to interact with other teachers. Indeed, as illustrated above, teachers do not
necessarily crave such interaction. This is despite the fact research suggests that
instrumental teachers (in this case, in a university music department) ‘welcomed the
opportunity to be involved in reflection and dialogue about their own teaching’ when
invited to do so (V. Young et al., 2003, p. 140) and in another case the author cites a
‘growing interest in instrumental and vocal pedagogy’ (Creech, 2010, p. 298).
3.3 Curriculum and pedagogy in private teaching
3.3.1 Teacher control
Several studies previously conducted appear to show a teacher-dominated relationship.
Persson (1996) looked at a teacher and her student’s perceptions of who took the
initiative in the lesson. The teacher estimated that on average it was a 50/50 split, whilst
students averaged a teacher/student split of 64/36. One student estimated that the
teacher/student split was 100% in favour of the former. Another study (Persson, 1994, p.
226) found that one teacher ‘is generally a very dominating teacher and demands more or
less total compliance to the suggestions and solutions she provides her students with’.
Duke (1999, p. 305) found similar with ‘teacher talking’ taking up 65% of ‘instructional
time’. Studies suggest that as a result of such dominance, lessons are often controlled
predominantly by the teacher. As Jorgensen (1986, p. 127) found, ‘teachers perceived
themselves as having a significant degree of control’.
Interview participants all commented on the amount of control they felt they possessed in
their lessons. There was general agreement that there is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach
to teaching, and as highlighted above, this was one of the attractions of private
instrumental teaching. Participants A and B felt that they were generally in control, whilst
Participant C felt the control was shared. Of the latter, the teacher felt she needed to have
50
more control teaching children rather than adults, but overall, the reason for sharing
control was:
‘I get a much better commitment to actually practising the stuff. If I try and impose
without having that sharing, occasionally you can get away with it, most of the time
you get resistance and a much harder work lesson.’
Similarly, the same teacher highlighted the fact that learning to play a musical instrument
is a voluntary undertaking and therefore there was a need to attempt to meet the needs
and interests of individual pupils as a partnership. She said, ‘if somebody doesn’t want to
do it, they won’t do it, so you’re always going to have to obtain agreement, acceptance’.
This echoes Rogoff (1990, p. 39) who places clear emphasis on the notion of a
partnership, saying:
‘Shared problem solving – with an active learner participating in culturally
organized activity with a more skilled partner – is central to the process of learning
in apprenticeship.’
Of course, teaching and learning is about much more than mere solving of problems, for
example, that of a particular technical challenge related to the instrument. Rogoff does,
however, emphasise a sense of collaboration in which both parties may learn together, with
knowledge being constructed collectively, hallmarks found within a community of practice
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2008). Participant C alludes to what might be termed to
be a ‘mentor-friend’ model of teaching, in which there is a ‘greater exchange between
teacher and student’, as teachers seek to ‘facilitate student experimentation and provide
musical ideas for the student to consider’, allowing teachers to be ‘more responsive to the
individual needs of the students’ (Lehmann et al., 2007, p. 187).
By consequence, it seems the case that an increase in teacher control results in a
decrease in pupil choice. In other words, by way of an analogy, the more of a playing field
is fenced off, the less choice there is as to where to play. All teachers interviewed
recognised that it was necessary to offer pupils some degree of choice, but there was a
degree of reticence, Participant B saying:
‘we might come across something they’re really interested in and spend a lot of
time on that, but it’s very rare that somebody will say “actually, I don’t want to do
this, and then I want to do that” and I’ll say OK then.’
I wonder if a degree of reticence exists because teachers are aware that in order to offer
more choice, they may need to relinquish control? What may be suggested here, is the
notion that pupils are allowed some input into the lesson content, but rarely instigate it; it
51
is unclear whether this is because the teacher does not facilitate such input, facilitation
being identified as a feature of the mentor-friend model mentioned above. This might be
an example of what Freire (1996) terms ‘false generosity’, in which the teacher might
attempt to ‘soften’ their power and control. Similarly, it might be suggestive of Foucault’s
(1979) argument that subjects are being controlled so that they can be conditioned to the
accepted ‘norm’. Overall, despite agreement that some sharing of control was necessary,
none of the teachers appeared to teach in a way which might be termed pupil-directed
learning, something which Mackworth-Young (1990a, p. 83) says was responsible for
‘increasing interest, positive attitudes and motivation’.
Control over curricula and lesson content was one of the things highlighted as being an
advantage of private teaching. Participant A indicated it was easier to maintain her
principles when teaching privately, saying:
‘you can’t get on with everybody, you can’t please everybody, and I’ll stick to my
principles whether that means doing solid technique for eight lessons in a row, but
if that’s what they need, that’s what they need, whereas I wouldn’t do that in
school… you’re not pleasing a third person, you are your own boss, so you can
make your own decisions, whether people like it or not… you’re less likely to be
bullied in your own home than in an institution.’
She also felt that people taking private lessons were doing so for different reasons, and
thus, this affected her approach:
‘at school, all of the peripatetic teachers would…be working towards trying to keep
their hours up, trying to keep people happy, trying to keep them coming back,
whereas privately, I never give that a thought…I wouldn’t pander to everybody’s
whim at school, but I would certainly bear people’s enjoyment in mind more,
because also I find…they’re doing lessons for different reasons than the people
that come to your home. They take it much more seriously, if someone’s coming to
your home…(a) they’ve had to seek you out, (b) they’ve had to get to your house,
and (c) they’ve had to think about it…I’d be more likely to change my teaching
style in a school to…accommodate the pupil than I would do at home, so I would
feel like I had more authority at home, and I care less about pleasing people at
home, because there’s no, there’s kind of no middle person…when I’m teaching in
a school, you do get all sorts of people. You get people who want to come in and
do rap! Well, I am no expert in rap whatsoever; I don’t listen to it, I don’t know
anything about it, all I know is that I don’t like it, but, I’d maybe, I think what I’d do
is give them something that had elements of that style in it, but not solely that
style, so I’d give it a go because you’re being employed by somebody else to
cover every aspect of singing, you have to at least give it a go and do it to the best
of your ability.’
Although the teachers interviewed generally agreed it was necessary to specialise to a
certain degree, all accepted the need to maintain an open mind. This is highlighted by
Leibman (2005, p. 86) who writes ‘being open minded and using a variety of styles
52
including pop, jazz and traditional folk styles alongside classical music helps your pupils
experience the widest range of music’.
Participant A also indicated that in the past she had travelled, as a private teacher, to
teach in people’s houses; however, she found this was more similar to school teaching,
saying:
‘you may be the cleaner, the level of importance is just right at the bottom for some
people, especially when they’re used to having people turn up at their houses, you
know, to do various tasks or various jobs and things, and you end up sort of feeling
like…some kind of worker in their house…you don’t have the same level of
authority that you would have in your own home.’
This implies, as a perception or otherwise, that teachers feel more in control, not just
teaching privately, but also when that private teaching takes place in their own home. In
Chapter 1 (section 1.3) above, I defined private teaching as including both teachers who
teach from home, and those who travel to pupil’s homes or an outside studio to teach. The
experience cited above may suggest a two-tiered system of private teaching, the home-
based studio being the place where teachers have most control. Although teachers
interviewed were aware that it was preferable, mainly for motivational reasons, for pupils
to have some control over the lesson content, there was little sense this was ‘built-in’ to
the lesson planning or overall curricula, and that instigation by the pupil, usually rare,
arose on an ‘as and when’ basis.
3.3.2 Choice over lesson content
As I explore further in Chapter 4 (section 4.4), a number of studies have sought to explore
the aims and objectives of instrumental teaching (e.g. Brown, 1994; Chappell, 1999; Mawer,
1999; Mills & Smith, 2003). Whilst a range of different areas of skill and knowledge have
been identified as desirable, there is still no universal agreement as to what should be either
taught or learnt.
Burwell (2012), through her research at Canterbury Christ Church University in the UK,
highlighted a desire to move away from the ‘concert soloist’ as the end result of
undergraduate study, arguing that students needed to possess a much wider skill set when
the reality is that few students will end up with solo performance careers. This highlights the
need for pupil independence, and thus, she argues that teaching needs to cultivate this. As
she says (2012, p. 212), ‘mere quizzes are not enough to cultivate genuine independence
in the student musician’. Crozier (ABRSM, 2004, p. 3) also agrees with this, saying:
53
‘It is very easy for teaching to become a mechanical routine with lessons always
following the same pattern. This sort of teaching may produce acceptable exam
results from your students but is unlikely to enable them to become musically
independent, which is the real goal of effective teaching.’
The autonomy of the private teacher poses a basic, but fundamental question: how do
such teachers choose what to teach? Lehmann et al. (2007) say that the primary
responsibility of the teacher is to determine what a student should learn and to devise the
best way of accomplishing it. They go on to say that a ‘curriculum indicates what content
is to be taught and in what order’ (2007, p. 188), saying (2007, pp. 188–189):
‘Whether or not they use a written, formal curriculum, all teachers make decisions
as to what their students will study and how to go about it. Taken together, the
individual decisions they make define the long-term music learning experiences of
their students.’
All teachers were asked how they chose what to include in the lessons they taught.
Responses here were mixed; teachers were able to articulate what they included, for
example, which method books they used with beginner pupils, but their reasons for how
they arrived at their curricula were less clear. This is not dissimilar to Jorgensen’s (1986,
p. 124) experience where she cites the attitude of the teacher who said ‘she did not know
what teaching was or what it accomplished and she was constantly surprised by the
effects of her actions’. In her study, she also found that of out of the six respondents to a
question about curriculum design (less than a half of the total interviewed), none saw
curriculum design as a problem, though as she discovered, ‘information on how teachers
had developed their present approaches to lesson format was sketchy’ (1986, p. 124).
She cites (1986, p. 120) the example of the teacher who, over the years, had devised a
‘loosely structured syllabus – a progression of certain “winner” pieces that had proved
popular with students in the past and continued to be effective at present’. Overall, she
found that in order of importance, ‘technique development’, ‘music reading and aural
skills’, and ‘knowledge of repertoire and performance practice’ were the top three
curricular objectives.
Bernstein (1975) found that the curriculum itself is the definition of what counts as valid
knowledge. He found that inevitably teachers devote more time to some curriculum areas
than others, and as in schools, there is likely to be a degree of variety in those parts of the
curriculum which are compulsory and those which are optional. Swanwick (1993, p. 153)
regards it an ‘absolute requirement to have a structure for educational programs’. That
said, Small (1998, p. 8) argues that ‘the fundamental nature and meaning of music lie not
in objects, not in musical works at all, but in action, in what people do’. He proposed a
definition (Small, 1998, p. 9) for the term ‘musicking’ being:
54
‘to music is to take part, in any capacity in a musical performance, whether by
performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing, by providing material for
performance (what is called composing), or by dancing.’
Elliot (1993, p. 36) argues that the act of making music in itself (‘musicking’) makes the
amount of constructive knowledge it is possible to acquire limitless, and thus, subject to
limitless enjoyment. He argues that successful curriculum development in music education
is dependent on three things (1993, pp. 36–37):
1. Depth ought to take precedence over breadth, in other words, ‘growth in constructive
knowledge is correlated with growth in procedural knowledge’;
2. Development of musicianship must be ‘meaningful’ and sequentially developed;
3. Skills need to be appraised by ‘teachers who know how to make music musically
and who are themselves connected with the music-making procedures’, in other
words, a process of induction.
It should therefore be no surprise that the curriculum is ever changing, perhaps summed
up usefully by Aspin (2000, p. 77) as ‘temporary, provisional, conditional and constantly
changing’, ‘experimental, tentative and problem-orientated’, ‘criticisable, corrigible and
subject to change’.
From within the data gathered, it is hard to identify any of the hallmarks identified above.
Participant A talked about the need to start from a technical basis, from which repertoire
choices would be made in order to address areas of technique. One of the reasons cited
for working this way was that it gave pupils a good grounding from which they could then
sing a wide variety of pieces. Her approach was to start from technique rooted in classical
singing, which could then be applied to other genres. Another reason for this approach
was the desire to instil good habits to prevent vocal damage at a later date. This does
demonstrate some aspects of the development of pupil independence, as highlighted by
Burwell (2012).
As there is a range of possible skills which could be included in any instrumental lesson,
Participant A was asked, for example, why she chose to exclude the skill of improvisation
from her lessons, this being one of the skills highlighted by Chappell (1999). There was
recognition that different teachers place different emphases on different areas of learning;
she went on to say:
‘It’s not something that I would, that I’ve ever taught, although if however
somebody said to me “I’d really like to explore improvisation”, then I’d certainly
think about it, and think about how I’d go about that, but it’s not something that I’ve
done much of or would place a great deal of importance on, but then again, it
depends what the overall outcome of the person… I don’t think I’ve ever taught
improvisation to be honest, but then again, if someone asked for it, you’d have to
think about it.’
55
I thought this response was particularly interesting, for Hallam (1998) recognises that the
instrumental curriculum is largely borne out of the aims of the pupil; she offers a template
(1998, p. 288) for developing a curriculum in which a pupil’s aims allow the teacher to set
out the content and context of the curriculum. Participant A demonstrates the need to be
open to new areas of learning identified by the pupil, even if the teacher has no previous
knowledge and experience of that skill.
Participant B also highlighted the fact that lessons could include a variety of different
skills, though in the main, her curriculum was based around the method books used; she
cited A Common Approach as a good way of checking whether her lessons had a good
balance of materials, for example:
‘I’ll go and look at it to make sure I’m not missing something, do you know, I
haven’t done enough ear work, or I haven’t done enough of this, or I haven’t done
enough of that, and then I’ll try to kind of incorporate it.’
A Common Approach was developed in 2002 as a ‘ground-breaking initiative, providing
for the first time an instrumental curriculum drawn together at national level’ (Federation of
Music Services, Royal College of Music, & National Association for Music Educators,
2002, p. 3). Ward (2004a, p. 213) assessing A Common Approach, went as far as to say
‘in reality [A Common Approach] is neither accepted nor approved by the majority of
teachers who – if the grapevine means anything – would sooner have nothing to do with
it’.
Participant B felt secure in using the method books as the basis of her teaching, because:
‘there’s been a huge amount of…very intelligent people…and research gone into
producing these things, so…I don’t feel I need to reinvent the wheel…I’m pretty
confident I’ve got a good method book, because everything I’ve seen and you
know and I’ve seen some really bad ones out there as well, so I think, if I use that
as my framework but then build around it and adapt it depending what’s going on.’
Thirdly, Participant C indicated that she built her lesson content around the music the
pupils wished to play, extracting technical or interpretative learning points from with the
repertoire as they arose. She also described how pupils range from those with a ‘very
exam-hungry parent who will bring me the syllabus and the piece books’ to those who
‘come in and just say “I want to be able to sing, what shall I sing?”’
Another hallmark of controlling lesson content as a private teacher was identified by all
three teachers as being the issue of graded examinations and other external
assessments. All three felt that they had a greater degree of control as a private teacher,
56
and that their lessons were less exam focussed than they might be if teaching
institutionally. Participant B said:
‘from what I know about people who’ve taught in schools, it’s very much a
pressure to just get them through the exams, particularly I find with independent
schools.’
Participant A said:
‘I think I would put less importance upon exams privately than I would at school.
There is always an element of, “So what grade is he on?” at school, but privately,
that doesn’t exist…there’s more of a dialogue as to what’s best for the pupil, rather
than box-ticking, CV-filling.’
Thirdly, Participant C said:
‘School tends to be an exam factory much more than the private teaching does. I’d
say, only a third of my private pupils take exams.’
These issues around exams inevitably affected the lesson content, Participant A saying:
‘I mean, there are some people I’ve taught [privately] who’ve never done an exam
in their life, and I wouldn’t dream of putting them in for an exam because, because
it wouldn’t be of any benefit to them, psychologically and emotionally…I had some
adults who never in a million years would be able to do the sight-reading for Grade
5 for example, but they don’t want to be able to do sight-reading, and that’s fine by
me. But, if I was teaching a child in a school, I would put equal importance upon
every aspect of the exam, and that would be…a fair thing to do, because you’re
exposing them to all the different elements that make you a good musician, not
just a good singer.’
Hallam (1998) suggests that many instrumental teachers employ a curriculum which is
based largely on the graded exam system. Similarly, Jorgensen (1986) found that
fundamentally, teachers believed that the content of lessons should be individualised and
tailored to each pupil; however, despite the desire to develop the right curriculum for each
pupil, 10 out of the 15 teachers she interviewed based their curricula on the syllabus of one
of the boards offering graded exams in music. Despite this, from the interview data
gathered, certainly as private teachers, participants placed very little importance on graded
exams, and felt, in general, less under pressure to make use of them.
3.3.3 The effect of received teaching on lesson content
There is evidence to suggest that what a teacher decides to include in their lessons is likely
to be heavily influenced by their own cultural context and received teaching; this is borne
out in the interview data gathered. Nerland (2007, p. 399) found that a ‘teacher’s close ties
57
to the professional community of music, the ubiquitous presence of musical works in the
teaching-learning situation, and the authority given to the performance traditions’ means
that lessons tend to be based upon a model of maintaining cultural practice. This highlights
the inevitable tension between the culture of the teacher and that of the other stakeholders,
most notably the pupil and parent, for it is not a given that all will be rooted in the same
sociocultural context. Nerland’s research (2007, p. 412) found that:
‘the teachers are themselves discursively constructed, they have gained their
expertise by participating in social practices, and as musicians they are embedded
in practices for which they as teachers operate as cultural agents.’
Mills (2007, p. 140) reinforces the familiar instrumental teaching scenario in which
teachers pass on their own experience of teaching:
‘staff notation, rather than music, became the centre of the musical life of my
growing private practice of violin and viola students. I had not been trained as an
instrumental teacher, and thought simply that this was what one did in instrumental
lessons.’
Hallam (1998, p. 241) reinforces this situation further, saying ‘the ways that they [the
teachers] teach tend to be those that were used by their teachers in teaching them’,
concluding that the instrumental teaching profession is naturally ‘conservative’. This
conservatism is highlighted by Jorgensen (1986, p. 121) in her examination of private
teachers’ attitudes to curriculum design where she found that ‘all respondents rated their
present approaches in curriculum design as good and did not intend to change in the
immediate future’.
All three teachers interviewed spoke about the way in which the teaching they had
received affected their own approach to teaching now. This included drawing both positive
and negative aspects from their own experiences and adjusting their teaching in response
to these. Traditionally, instrumental tuition has been based on a ‘master-apprentice’, or
‘conservatoire’ model. Creech (2010, p. 298) considers this to be arguably the ‘most
pervasive and prevailing one’; in the interviews I conducted it was clear that the master-
apprentice model was still very much in evidence. Participant A described the way she
used exercises and materials which her own teacher had taught her. Although she
recognised that not all of these would work for everyone, she said it was possible to vary
and adapt them. The same teacher went on to say:
‘[the] kind of lessons you had as a child and how they were structured. I
think…that is the template whether that be the right thing or not…it is very difficult
to move out of that box you’ve been used to.’
58
This approach to teaching from a technical basis was highlighted in the research of Young
et al. (2003) who cited examples of a teacher-dominant form of teaching in which pupils
directly copy the model set by the teacher, a teaching model which Lehmann et al. (2007,
p. 189) find to be ‘technique-heavy’.
Participant B spoke extensively about her experience studying on the EPTA course and
the way in which this influenced her teaching. She spoke of her own experience learning
the piano as a teenager, saying, ‘I was very much on the exam treadmill, I mean, I did
Grade 8 at 14, and I did appallingly badly in my aural, because I was never really taught
aural’. In view of this, she said ‘I certainly…don’t think I teach like I was taught’.
Participant C talked about the positive learning experience she encountered, particularly
as a ‘late starter’ (she did not have her first lesson until she was 35). She spoke openly
about the desire to continue the work of her own teacher who had died several years
earlier:
‘because I was very, very fortunate in the models I had as my teachers, I’ve
emulated, certainly from [name removed], my singing teacher a lot of his attitude
and expectation. He always found more in people than they expected, and I have
tried to do that. He was always someone who was very positive, without being
“Yes, yes, that’s lovely”, but he was always very positive, so that’s something I’ve
tried to live up to, and quite often, I’ve found myself, if I’ve got an issue, having to
go away and think, “What would [they] have done?” One of the great sadness’s
was of course he died in 2009, he was only 61. A pity really as it would have been
useful to be able to ring him up and say “[name removed] I’ve got an issue here”,
so he was a wonderful mentor.’
There was, however, recognition that she was a teacher in her own right, saying ‘I’m not
copying [my teacher], but I am trying to use him as the example of what I do. I couldn’t
copy [my teacher], I am not [my teacher]’. This ties in with research conducted by Gaunt
(2008, p. 221) who found that six of the 14 teachers interviewed in her study referred to
‘fulfilling a debt of gratitude for the knowledge and skills they had gained themselves by
‘‘transmitting’’ them to the next generation’. In one interview, speaking about her own
teacher, Participant B said:
‘he enormously influences my teaching, yes, you know, I take a lot of his kind of
tips and stuff like that, and kind of condense it or adapt it and use it in my
teaching…if I could teach 10% as well as [my teacher] I’d be happy.’
Jones and Parkes (2010, p. 52) found similar experiences, with a large percentage of
music students keen to teach in order to ‘share the importance of music with others’.
59
Bernstein (1975) alluded to a system of self-perpetuation in which subject loyalty is
established and transmitted by teachers. This notion of self-perpetuation can also be
found in the structure of lessons themselves where it was accepted that lesson structure
had ‘arisen from tradition and habit, unquestioned over many years as generations of
apprentices have become the next master teachers’ (Gaunt, 2008).
3.3.4 External influences affecting lesson content
The teachers interviewed felt that their own teaching was influenced by a variety of
external factors. There was a sense, as Participant A said, that ‘there are things you just
pick up along the way, and then things that you develop yourself’. She talked of the things
she had picked up on choral courses, for example, and the way in which these could be
adapted for an individual lesson. Secondly, Participant B spoke of her experience on the
EPTA course and how this had quite dramatically changed her outlook on teaching:
‘I consider the EPTA qualification a professional qualification, and I’m very pleased
that I’ve got it. I can see that I have a professional attitude towards to my, what I
do, both from a business perspective and also from a pedagogical perspective.’
Both these teachers demonstrated that although their teaching was firmly rooted in that
which they themselves had received, they were not closed to new ideas and methods,
and all showed a willingness to consider additional or alternative approaches.
3.3.5 Professional responsibility and its relationship to lesson content
All three teachers spoke about a sense of professional responsibility, where, despite their
autonomy as private teachers, they felt a duty to draw boundaries. Participant A spoke of
the need to ensure their teaching was safe, saying:
‘I think there’s…a level of care that you need to take…the only time that I would
refuse to do something is if I thought it was going to be harmful for them,
technically, if I was going to do any damage to their voice which I wouldn’t, I
wouldn’t want to be responsible for, and if they were hell-bent on doing it anyway,
I’d say, in that case, I’d go to somebody else if you want to do that because I don’t
want to be a part of a negative impact on your voice.’
Although this teacher was concerned about professional responsibility, in this case, she
also realised the limitations of what she could control, and how this affected her
professional reputation:
‘I’ve never thought about my reputation, and I’ve, I think it’s very unfair to be
judged upon your pupils. I mean, people say “you’re only as good as the person
you’re teaching”…but, I don’t think they bear any resemblance actually.’
60
Participant B, speaking about allowing pupils to have some input into the curriculum,
stated that although she welcomed it, there had to be some teaching point to be derived
from it, saying that unless these points existed, pupils may as well learn the piece from
YouTube or suchlike. Overall, she felt she was well respected as a teacher, saying:
‘I think all the parents of my kids respect me, but I think they respect me as
someone who their kids like, they enjoy the lessons, they know that I’m kind of,
you know, organised and reliable and all that kind of stuff.’
Participant C felt that it was necessary, on occasion, to draw a boundary about what was
and was not suitable for a pupil to learn, although such a problem did not arise regularly:
‘I think the only time I’ve refused to do something was when an eight year old
brought in a song she’d chosen which was full of language and concepts which I
wouldn’t have aired with somebody of that age, which is possibly something which
is unusual to singers, and I made her show the words to her mother, and we
dropped the song very, very quickly after that.’
She also recognised her own limitations in being able to judge this, alongside balancing
the requirements of the individual pupil:
‘One does have to draw a line, but that’s about the only time that I’ve done that,
usually I would be of the view that we will proceed with caution bearing in mind
that I do not think this is a good idea. There is this chance I might be wrong!’
Participants have spoken previously about the varied nature of the work they undertake
(see Chapter 3, section 3.2.2). This exchange, in part, shows that the age of the pupil has
some bearing on the approach of the teacher, in other words, the teacher makes a
judgement about what is or is not suitable for teaching to a particular pupil. In this context,
this related specifically to the subject matter of a song, but given the diverse nature of
private teaching, the effect of pupil age on teacher approach and control warrants further
exploration.
Highlighted here is perhaps some misinterpretation of what student-led learning actually
entails. Johnston (2001, pp. 25–26) asserts that 100% pupil control is not realistic;
speaking about her school’s own collaborative curriculum, she says:
‘I slowly came to realize that there were some decisions that were not open…It
was unfair to ask them [the pupils] to be involved in a decision when the
conclusion was already known… I came to believe that limitless freedom was
insensitive to their [the pupils’] development needs and abilities, as well as
irresponsible on my part.’
61
Whilst this relates to school classroom teaching, it highlights the need both for boundaries,
and to be sensitive to pupils’ needs. Both these are important considerations in relation to
autonomy and control. I shall return to these ideas in Chapter 7.
Overall, all three teachers interviewed demonstrated a strong sense of professionalism
and a desire to meet the needs of pupils in a constructive and effective way. Although it
might be seen from the above that not all their approaches are based on evidence or have
strong pedagogical roots, this should not, in any way, detract from the overall professional
approach to their teaching.
3.4 Discussion
Whilst it is true that research, particularly into private teaching, is scarce, the teachers’
responses here echo some of the results found by Jorgensen (1986) in her study of
private piano teachers, conducted over 30 years ago. Based on the results of her study,
with reference to a range of other literature and the results of my own study, I would
suggest that in most cases, Hallam’s assertion (1998, p. 241) that the profession is
‘conservative’, appears to be borne out.
Overall, participants saw many advantages to teaching privately, and in the main, this
appeared to be the preferable option. Although there were financial and logistical
considerations, the notion of teacher control was primarily at the heart of their choice. All
three felt they had more control teaching privately, demonstrated in particular by their
views on exams. Generally, they found advantage in having control over a range of
aspects of their teaching, not only the curricula, but over a variety of business decisions
related to such areas as fees and studio policies. Overall, there was a strong sense that
increasing autonomy had a positive effect on their teaching.
The responses regarding control, not just in terms of the overall teaching business, but
over lesson content too, were mixed. Although there was an awareness that as teachers,
they needed to share the experience with the pupil, this was not always actively sought. In
some ways, this is unsurprising; Bernstein (1975) found that in order to offer more pupil
choice, teachers needed to relinquish control. Here, teachers appeared very much in
control, and combined with the sense of duty to their own teachers, and a sense of
professional responsibility, relinquishment of that control may appear threatening. Freire
(1996, p. 53) describes such an approach to teaching as ‘banking’, in which education
‘becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher
is the depositor’, thus the oppressor and the oppressed. He describes any change to such
62
a structure as undermining the oppressors’ purposes ‘to avoid the threat of student
conscientização’ (critical consciousness) (1996, p. 55).
The content of the teachers’ lessons was primarily based upon their own received
teaching, whether that was positive or negative, and a strong desire to transmit this to the
next generation. Although they demonstrated an awareness of alternative approaches,
and a sense of remaining open to new approaches, all three seemed happy with the way
they currently taught. Jorgensen (1986) found similar in her study, particularly the sense
that teachers felt secure in their approach, even if they had little awareness of how they
had arrived at it.
The interviews suggest that the lesson content is primarily constructed as a result of the
teacher’s own experiences and cultural context. Although this research suggests input
from a range of external factors, and from pupils themselves, this is still the primary basis
on which their judgement is based. Interview data suggest teacher control, and
maintenance of that control is at the heart of the lessons themselves. Although teachers
were not closed to change and different ways of working, this required a degree of control
relinquishment on their part. The primary focus of the curricula was to transmit what the
teachers termed to be ‘valid knowledge’, and it may therefore be assumed that if that has
been effectively transmitted, pupils have been subject to a high-quality learning
experience.
Debates about the value and place of music education in society, and indeed, the arts in
general, continue. The Protect Music Education Campaign, supported by over 130
organisations, has been particularly active in the past five years and amongst other things
has raised awareness of the cuts to music education services in Wales (ISM, 2015). I too
have written on the challenges facing and changes within music education (Barton, 2014)
and similarly, in the last few years, a report on the power of music and the contribution it
makes to society and education has been published (Hallam, 2015). Private teachers are
clearly an important and extensive part of the music education landscape, and as we
collectively seek to maintain and raise the profile of the subject, their input should be
considered of significant value.
Whilst in the course of these interviews, the three teachers offer insights into how they
approach their role, there is much still open to exploration. Not least, the way in which
teachers perceive pupil input, and indeed, teacher control, is something which warranted
further exploration. In view of this, these two themes in particular form part of my survey of
private teachers and are explored further in Chapters 6 and 7. As has already been noted,
researchers know relatively little about the private teaching profession, but through the
63
survey, I am able to offer, albeit a snapshot in time, a much clearer picture, and this is
explored in Chapter 5. Prior to exploring the survey data, in Chapter 4 I draw together a
range of literature for review, including some already mentioned above and discussed in
later chapters.
64
4. Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks
4.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature and theoretical frameworks relevant to my research.
The chapter has constantly evolved during the course of my research in response to the
developing picture illuminated by the data. The iterative approach employed meant that as
much as the data have been informed by the literature reviewed, so the literature has
been informed by the data analysis. This chapter is presented primarily as a follow-on
from the background to the research discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.3) and phase one
of the data collection (Chapter 3); however, it has also developed in response to the data
gathered in phase two, and thus summarises a range of literature, much of which is
referred to later on in the course of this thesis. Figure 4 below shows the way in which
each stage of the research has influenced and been influenced by the literature review.
Figure 4: Progression of the research and its effect on the thesis’ literature review.
Literature
review
(Chapter 4)
Initial
literature
review
(Chapter 1)
Interviews
(phase one)
(Chapter 3)
Survey
(phase two)
(Chapters 5-
7)
Discussion
(Chapter 8)
65
As discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.3), literature which refers specifically to one-to-one
private instrumental teaching is scarce. Indeed, Brown (1994, p. 102) called for further
research into the ‘instructional process’, saying that ‘the current findings on the subject
only scratch the surface of the complexities in a one-to-one tutorial relationship’. This, of
course, was written nearly 25 years ago, and both previous and subsequent to that,
attempts have been made to fill this gap (e.g. Cathcart, 2013; Creech, 2010; L. Gibbs,
1993; Jorgensen, 1986). Whilst there is much which could be covered here, I have
attempted to concentrate on the features of each theory or concept which pertain to my
research questions. Similarly, whilst there are many examples of instances where such
theories and concepts have been applied, I have sought to refer to those pertaining
primarily to music education.
At this chapter’s opening stage, it is worth pointing out that although I have primarily
divided this chapter into three sections, teaching, learning and knowledge, there is clearly
a good amount of overlap between each. Although I have referred to a theory under the
heading of ‘learning’, it is not possible to remove the concept of knowledge, and indeed,
that of teaching from the equation. Finally, I look at a number of theories and concepts
which, in particular, relate to control and how this can be impacted by all three of teaching,
learning and knowledge. I begin here with a brief overview of what is already known about
private teachers.
4.2 One-to-one teaching in context
Chapter 1 (section 1.3) gave a brief overview of the literature related to private teaching,
placing private teaching in its wider educational context. It is worthwhile taking a moment
here to consider who private teachers actually are, before exploring in greater detail the
academic research and theories which are relevant to my project.
It is virtually impossible to even begin to estimate the number of instrumental teachers
working privately from home-based studios in the UK. A search of the online directory
Music Teachers (Bridgewater Multimedia Ltd, 2010) revealed that there were over 2,000
teachers advertising their services within a 30-mile radius of my home postcode in
Staffordshire. Clearly, there are limitations to such a site which is unchecked, meaning
that we do not know how current the listings are. Nevertheless, it reveals the potential for
tens, possibly even hundreds of thousands of teachers operating privately in the UK.
Despite it being a profession perceived as being well-hidden from view, and despite the
potential for such huge numbers, Holmes (2006, p. 29) describes such teaching practices
as dominantly part of a ‘cottage industry’, and those engaged in such teaching were
described by Morgan (1998, p. 1) as ‘shadowy figures’.
66
The question of numbers has remained generally unanswered by researchers, and in light
of the above, it is possible to see why. Hallam (1998, p. 4) talks of ‘many’ pupils learning
with a private teacher, and Robinson (2010, p. 4) talks of ‘vast’ numbers of private
teachers. Brown (1994) identified a rapid expansion of such teaching, with Cathcart
(2011) estimating there could be as many as 35,000 piano teachers in the UK alone.
Creech (2010, p. 296) says it is:
‘extremely difficult to calculate just how many private instrumental teachers there
may be in the UK, because this strand of work so often forms part of a wider
portfolio of musical activity.’
The Musicians’ Union (MU) found that of their 30,000 members, 60% said that teaching
formed part of their ‘portfolio’ of work (Musicians’ Union, 2012). Despite this acceptance of
the portfolio career, research suggests that higher education institutions and
conservatoires are not always effective in training their students accordingly (Zhukov,
2013).
A 2006 report (Youth Music, 2006) found that just under 6% of the 1,295 children aged 7-
19 who were surveyed learnt with a private teacher, thus only around 78 in this instance.
The 2011 Census (Office for National Statistics, 2014) recorded 8,633,800 young people
aged 7-19 living in England and Wales: accepting there are obvious limitations and
generalisations here, based on a figure of 6%, it raises the potential of over half a million
young people learning with a private teacher, a not insignificant number. This also, of
course, excludes anyone under the age of seven or over the age of 19.
Jorgensen’s research (1986) found that out of the 15 teachers she surveyed, the number
of students each teacher taught ranged from five to 39. At an average of 19 pupils,
numbers quickly add up. Goddard (2002) found that out of the 42 piano teachers she
surveyed, teachers had anything between four and 60 pupils each. Based on the obvious
multiplication of such figures, a figure of over half a million seems not unreasonable, and
potentially significantly underestimated.
These numbers are perhaps unsurprising given the argument which says that at one time
or another, most musicians find themselves involved in some form of teaching or
instruction, though not necessarily individual or even private teaching (Lehmann et al.,
2007). Previous research (Fredrickson, Moore, et al., 2013) has suggested that even
teachers themselves realise that their pupils may one day end up teaching. Lehmann et
al. (2007) cite one of the reasons some teachers choose to work on a one-to-one basis is
because a more close pupil-teacher relationship can be formed, more so than with class
music teachers or ensemble directors. Previous research (Wöllner & Ginsborg, 2011) has
67
also suggested that whilst there are benefits to group teaching, the lack of individual
attention, as found in one-to-one lessons, was a potential negative. There may also be
practical reasons for choosing private teaching, for example, childcare (“VCPiano,” 2014),
or even ‘flexisecurity’ where:
‘security is not resting on a relationship with one organisation but on the sheer
depth of experience and resourcefulness an individual has acquired by engaging
with a much wider universe.’
(Hopson & Ledger, 2011, pp. 5–6)
The primary focus thus far has been on face-to-face ‘live’ one-to-one private teaching, but
it should be said that teachers do engage in other forms of music education on a private
basis, including group tuition and virtual tuition, the latter an area which is likely to ‘impact
on the future careers of studio teachers’ (Creech, 2010, pp. 297–298). Nafisi (2013, p.
352) found that ‘many’ respondents in her study ran their own private studios in addition to
teaching in a variety of institutional settings. Creech (2010, p. 295) finds that for many
musicians, teaching forms part of a wider ‘portfolio career’. Out of the 263 violin teachers
she surveyed, 75% taught from private studios, though many others were teaching in
additional settings, including 39% in state schools, 43% in independent schools, 12% in
music colleges or university music departments, and 11% on junior conservatoire
programmes.
There is no formal requirement for studio-based teachers to have undertaken any training
or qualifications. In a conservatoire context, Burwell (2005) found that out of the 19
instrumental teachers studied, none had formal qualifications, and Purser (2005) writing
also about conservatoires found instrumental teachers employed mainly on their playing
rather than teaching ability. Purser (2005, p. 287) went on to highlight the fact that once
these teachers were appointed, they may be ‘left alone to get on with teaching…for the
most part unmonitored’, suggesting that even in institutional contexts, one-to-one lessons
can remain what Nafisi (2013, p. 347) terms a ‘private affair’. Although Haddon (2009, p.
59) found that none of the teachers in her study possessed a teaching qualification, some
did possess performance diplomas. The problem which arises is that a good performer is
not necessarily a good teacher, for ‘great music teachers possess specialized skills, which
are largely distinct from those of the performer’ (Lehmann et al., 2007, p. 185). It is said
that people are ‘not born great music teachers’ and that ‘being an effective teacher
requires more than just being a skilled performer’ (Lehmann et al., 2007, p. 203). Previous
research (Persson, 1994, 1996; Ward, 2004b, 2004a) has also highlighted differing
attitudes between performer-teachers and educator-teachers, the former favouring those
pupils who they perceived to be self-motivated (Fredrickson, 2007). Indeed, Purser (2005)
called for the introduction of training for performers teaching in conservatoires.
68
Cathcart (2011) found that out of the piano teachers surveyed 55% held a post-graduate
or graduate music qualification. Mills and Smith (2003) found that 83% of instrumental
teachers working in schools or higher education had a music qualification from a
conservatoire or university, at degree-equivalent or diploma level. Haddon (2009) found
that out of the 23 participants in her study of final-year undergraduates who were already
teaching, only one had any training, and none had a teaching qualification. As Robinson
(2010, p. 3) says, ‘taking lessons with a “qualified” teacher is not a prerequisite for
achievement’. Even with a range of qualifications, courses and training opportunities on
offer, there is no universally-agreed benchmark for teaching ability, and, as has already
been said, none are mandatory.
Cain (1990, p. 253) found that teachers’ qualifications were ‘not important to most
students’. Why some teachers choose to work towards formal qualifications or undertake
training is unclear; however, Creech (2010, p. 297) found that ‘qualifications and
experience did not have an impact on teachers’ earning power’, and it exists in previous
research (Upitis, Abrami, Brook, Boese, & King, 2017) that teachers themselves self-
report high levels of engagement with training and development opportunities. Haddon
(2009, p. 60) found that students often learned to teach through experience and that this
could result in ‘teaching habits based on subconscious transference of behaviours and
methods from their former teachers’. In view of the fact that experience is likely to be
heavily influenced by their own received teaching, it is interesting to note that she
highlights the lack of resourcefulness in teachers’ approach to the lesson content. Indeed,
Kite (1990) argues that the teaching of teachers should be a vital component of any
musical training undertaken.
One feature of private teaching is its very existence outside of any institutional
frameworks. It has been suggested that collaboration is an important part of any
educational context:
‘We now realise that by collaborating with each other and correcting each others’
work we all, as a group, make progress faster than if we shield our work from each
other.’
(Aspin, 2000, p. 77)
A number of key benefits (Bjøntegaard, 2015; Johansson, 2013; Jørgensen, 2000;
Lennon & Reed, 2012; V. Young et al., 2003) can be found in collaborating with others,
notably: sharing, debating and acknowledging good practice; identifying issues and
questions related to teaching and learning; supporting a rationale for change based on
evidence; and provision of a foundation for future development. With private teachers
generally working in isolation, Creech (2010, p. 296) highlights the need for organisations
69
which allow private teachers to ‘network, share resources and access professional
development opportunities’.
Aspin’s definition of the role of the teacher (2000, p. 77) does not, fundamentally include
‘teaching’, saying ‘arts teachers can only help, teachers can only facilitate, teachers can
only accompany and assist the student.’ Educationalist, Professor Sugata Mitra states that
the role of the teacher was ‘not a guide, not an expert, just a friend’ (D. Evans, 2014), and
Abramo (2014, p. 64) likens the role of the teacher to a ‘mother’ figure. Lehmann et al.
(2007, p. 193) say that ‘a teacher’s role is not to merely broadcast information that
students may or may not receive. The quality of teaching is defined by the learning that
takes place’. I think this point is crucial and I shall return to look at this later in this chapter
in terms of behaviourism and the notion of ‘banking’ in education. Davidson, Moore and
Sloboda (1998, p. 155) cite the example of a teacher who was ‘friendly, chatty, relaxed,
and encouraging’, and suggest that establishing a friendly and relaxed relationship in the
early stages is essential. Mills and Smith (2003, pp. 7–8) cite one teacher who said the
primary hallmark of a good teacher was ‘enthusiasm’, with the aim to encourage and be
‘sensitive to individual needs’. Creech (2010, p. 298) says that:
‘First and foremost effective practice in this area of work clearly requires musical
competence, knowledge of one’s instrument and understanding of teaching and
learning.’
Liebman (2005, p. 86) identifies ‘competence, qualifications, energy and reliability, as well
as superb levels of communication, organisation and time management skills’ as
hallmarks of a good teacher. Lehmann et al. (2007) reinforce the idea of a teacher’s
playing competency, saying that one of their primary functions is to model aurally
performances for their pupils, in other words, the ability to demonstrate.
Whilst little literature exists which pertains specifically to private instrumental teaching, it
would be wrong to dismiss the body of information available which refers more widely to
one-to-one instrumental teaching. One of the first, and classic texts on the subject came
from Susan Hallam (1998), and indeed, it was one of the first books I acquired after I
started teaching. Hallam (1998, p. xv) sought to draw on her experience as a professional
musician and teacher in a way which provided instrumental teachers with ‘an
understanding of human learning and how to promote it in their pupils’. Several years later
came the late Janet Mills’ (2007) book on the same subject in which she sought to ‘help
teachers teach in a manner that is true to the nature of music and what musicians do’ (J.
Mills, 2007, back cover). It should be noted that Mills’ text is slanted towards instrumental
teaching in schools, and indeed, it was written as a companion volume to her 2005 book,
Music in Schools. Others (Creech, 2010; Creech & Gaunt, 2012) have also written more
70
generally about instrumental teaching, in particular its place within the wider educational
landscape. Creech (2010, p. 310) refers to the private music studio as an ‘enduring
feature of many professional musicians’ portfolio of professional practice’. It is recognised
that private teaching can be a precarious career and that access to training and
development opportunities can prove challenging (Creech, 2010; Creech & Gaunt, 2012).
Burwell’s (2012) text relating to what she terms, ‘studio-based’ instrumental teaching is
perhaps the most recent book on the general subject of instrumental teaching, although
one which is primarily slanted towards practices in higher education institutions. Above all,
her text seeks to offer a framework around which teachers can base their reflections,
highlighting notions of both vertical transmission of knowledge and horizontal collaboration
amongst practitioners.
Beyond what might be termed to be general writing about instrumental teaching, a number
of studies have looked, more specifically, at particular phenomena related to music
education in the one-to-one context. Examples of this include Baughman (2015) who
examined the methods singing teachers used to teach their students how to practise. She
found that whilst teachers incorporated a variety of different strategies in their lessons,
there was no overall formula or consistency in their approach to practice strategies.
Indeed, the idea of practice outside of the lesson is investigated further by Burwell and
Shipton (2013) who looked at developing strategic self-regulatory, self-evaluation, and
time management skills for instrumental learners. Similarly, previous research
(Jørgensen, 2002) has highlighted the benefits of effective home practice on progress.
Just as students might be expected to practise their instruments, research has examined
the way in which instrumental teachers have developed their own practice. In one study,
researchers concluded that ‘musicians who teach private lessons agree that learning to
teach should be part of the musicians’ educational process’ (Fredrickson, Geringer, &
Pope, 2013, p. 230). A similar outcome was found when surveying music majors in the
USA (Fredrickson, 2007).
A number of studies have examined the nature of teacher identity in relation to
instrumental teaching. For example, Abramo (2014) found that instrumental teachers
experienced conflict when instrumental music is required to compete with other academic
disciplines, as well as conflict resulting from pedagogical differences. This is something
highlighted in Chapter 1 (section 1.1) in relation to the place and value of arts subjects in
schools. Similarly, in her study, Bowles (2010, p. 57) found that teachers of adult
instrumental learners were aware that these pupils’ ‘responsibility-laden lives’ posed
challenges when it came to teachers’ existing notions of planning, attendance and
practice. Overall, Bowles (2010) recognised that whilst there were similarities between
71
adult learners and children, the former in particular required age-appropriate materials and
flexible methodologies.
Other studies (Burwell, 2005, 2016b; Jørgensen, 2000; Parkes, Daniel, West, & Gaunt,
2015) have examined one-to-one instrumental teaching in different contexts, for example,
college, university and higher education environments. In particular, Jørgensen (2000)
highlights a lack of institutional responsibility for students’ instrumental learning in higher
education, whilst Parkes et al. (2015) suggest a complex interplay between teacher and
performer identities in similar contexts. One-to-one teaching in a conservatoire context
has also been examined (Gaunt, 2008; Purser, 2005; Renshaw, 1986). Of particular note
are the power dynamics identified by Gaunt (2008) and the way in which these can
challenge notions of relationship, reflection and responsibility in one-to-one conservatoire
teaching. Previous research (McCarthy, 2017) has also considered the nature of music
and leisure, in which, unlike higher education contexts, teachers, professionals
themselves, are unlikely to be teaching would-be professionals.
A number of studies have looked at the teaching of specific instruments, for example, the
subject of a thesis by Cathcart (2013) which explored the practices, values, expertise,
motivation and attitudes of UK piano teachers, and also a related study concerning a
‘whole-brain approach to piano teaching’ (Chappell, 1999, p. 253). Cathcart (2013) argues
that an over-reliance on Victorian approaches to piano teaching means that accepted
teaching standards should be agreed in order for progress in the profession to be made.
Similarly, Cheng and Durrant (2007, p. 197) explored the teaching of strings in a variety of
contexts, including the ‘individual lesson’, finding that ‘the pupil initiated the discourse and
learning activities most of the time’. String teaching features again in a study of
interactions within a violin teaching studio (Creech & Hallam, 2010, p. 403), which
concluded that in this context was seen a ‘model of a “responsive leader”, providing
authoritative direction but also compelled to respond to the individual pupil needs and
parental wishes or circumstances’. Once again, strings were the feature of a study which
examined teacher and student behaviours in lessons, concluding that ‘excellent Suzuki
teachers' instruction regarding music repertoire is characterized by a great deal of active
student involvement’ (Duke, 1999, p. 304).
Whilst there is clearly some overlap with other areas of research already mentioned, some
studies have looked specifically at the interactions within the one-to-one teaching context.
For example, Creech (2006) investigated the interactions between pupils, parents and
teachers within instrumental learning, and in particular the way these could be reframed in
the context of complex and interconnected social systems. Creech and Hallam (2011)
explored the dynamics between pupils, parents and teachers, and the effect this had on
72
learning (see also Creech & Hallam, 2003). Daniel (2006, p. 204) explored interactions
within a variety of contexts, including instrumental teaching, finding that the:
‘one-to-one footage features a teacher-dominant mode of transmission, with a
relatively limited level of student interaction, exchange, or contribution to the
learning environment beyond responding to directed tasks.’
A number of other studies have previously highlighted the teacher-dominance found in
one-to-one lessons (Burwell, 2016a; Gaunt, 2008; West & Rostvall, 2003).
Surprisingly little literature exists which refers specifically to instrumental teaching and
graded music exams; however, interaction before, during and after exams is examined in
a study by Davidson and Scutt (1999) suggesting that exams both aided and hindered
learning.
Whilst interactions between teachers and students, and indeed between teachers,
students and parents have been investigated (Creech & Hallam, 2010; Macmillan, 2004;
Upitis, Abrami, Brook, & King, 2016), wider collaboration with others, including individuals
and institutions remains unclear. 25 years ago, Gane (1996, p. 49) called for better
collaboration between instrumental teachers and schools, suggesting a model of teaching
which ‘will enable the unique character of what instrumental music has to offer to be
maintained whilst enriching it with wider curriculum perspectives’. A similar study
(Goddard, 2002, p. 243) also concluded ‘an awareness exists of the need to develop
teaching philosophies that relate the private lesson to music in the National Curriculum’.
In this section, I have considered a range of literature related to one-to-one instrumental
teaching. Whilst the majority of studies relate to instrumental teaching in higher education,
a number of key themes emerge which are also of relevance in consideration of the
autonomous nature of private teaching. In particular, the balance of power, and by
consequence, control, is documented in a number of studies, reinforcing notions of
teacher dominance. Literature suggests that the question of how many private teachers
there are remains unanswerable, something which goes to further underline the complex
nature of the profession. Whist it is a sector which is perceived as being hidden from view,
studies suggest that private teachers teach a wide range of age and ability levels,
resulting in high degrees of adaptability and flexibility. These are hallmarks previously
identified as being beneficial when such work occurs, as is often the case with private
teachers, within the framework of a portfolio career. The literature explored raises a
number of questions regarding qualifications and training, and in particular, how
accessible and valuable these are. Private teachers operate without agreed benchmarks
with some studies suggesting this results in an overreliance on the approaches of their
73
own past teachers. Above all, the literature discussed highlights the complex and
interconnected interactions which take place, both within the one-to-one lesson itself, and
outside.
4.3 Learning
Having considered the research which relates specifically to one-to-one instrumental
teaching, I will now consider literature related to learning. Amongst the many theories
related to learning, it is defined as everything from a passive activity in which learners
essentially act as receptacles for knowledge, through to those who argue it occurs as a
result of social processes and engagement (McCormick & Murphy, 2008). Learning is
defined in the dictionary as ‘the acquisition of knowledge or skills through study,
experience, or being taught’ (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2018). It is important to
note here that learning does not necessarily take place as a result of teaching alone.
What is clear in the sphere of education is that learning, and the means by which learning
occurs, is much contested and debated. It is an area which has evolved over time as one
theorist builds on the work of another, and is an area of study which continues to evolve
(see Illeris, 2018). It is important to point out that although learning is theorised, and whilst
the majority of teachers operate ‘according to a theory or theories of learning and within
the context of a philosophy of what education should fundamentally be about’, that does
not necessarily mean that such theories are held and acted upon consciously (Moore,
2012, p. 1).
Once again, there is inevitably a good deal of overlap between theories of learning, and
although it might seem that one progressed seamlessly from another, the landscape is, of
course, significantly more complex. Similarly, learning theories often reflect society, for
example individualism and capitalism in the West, versus community and communism in
Russia. As a result, theories are often deeply political, and this is worth bearing in mind.
There are many theories of learning in existence, and I have, by necessity here,
concentrated on those which relate more specifically to my research questions.
4.3.1 Behaviourism
It is appropriate to begin by considering one of the very early theories of learning, that of
behaviourism. Through the observation of human behaviour, and in some cases, animal
behaviour, psychologists were able to better understand how people acquired new skills
and knowledge. The underlying principle of the behaviourist theory, is that of ‘classical
conditioning’, through which ‘new signals are acquired for existing responses’ resulting in
74
people creating associations between them (Bartlett & Burton, 2016, p. 211). These
associations become the way by which people learn. At the root of behaviourist theory is
that ‘all behaviour can be explained in terms of the laws of operant and classical
conditioning’ (Hargreaves, 1986, p. 18).
Developed by Skinner (1936), ‘operant conditioning’ is the means by which reinforcement
of a behaviour encourages individuals to behave in a certain way. Through his work
observing the behaviour of rats, he argued that by removing an unpleasant experience, a
behaviour could be further strengthened. It must be noted that although the use of
rewards and punishment are often cited in connection to Skinner’s theory, he argued that
whilst both these might change a behaviour in the short term, it is through positive and
negative reinforcement that a behaviour is strengthened (Nye, 1979). In applying such a
concept to the practice of instrumental teaching, when a pupil arrives for their lesson
having not practised, whilst it might be tempting to apply some form of punishment, for
example, scales all lesson, this is unlikely to produce any long-lasting change in behaviour
beyond potentially practising for the next lesson. However, lesson time spent revising
strategies and approaches to practice at home offers positive reinforcement and is more
likely to produce a longer-term modification of behaviour.
In reference to music education, Garnett (2013, p. 161) defines a behaviourist approach
as one ‘in which learning music consists of becoming proficient in a range of musical
behaviours or skills’. Sink (2002, p. 315) suggests that behaviourist approaches to music
education are heavily focussed on a ‘teacher-centred instructional model and purposeful
change of behaviour’ in which the teacher ‘leads and directs students to acquire and
generate specific, clearly defined knowledge’. This is more widely reflected in the studies
previously cited in Chapter 4 (section 4.2) above which related to teacher dominance in
one-to-one instrumental lessons. What is unclear here is how the development of musical
knowledge and skill might occur as a result of operant conditioning. Is this acquisition a
result of punishment and rewards, or as a result of positive or negative reinforcement? As
Skinner (1936) argued, the use of extrinsic motivation to alter human behaviour should not
be used in place of nurturing intrinsic motivation. In other words, in my example previously
mentioned, is a pupil more or less likely to develop the skills of effective practice as a
result of the threat of an all-scale lesson? As highlighted by Richelle (1993), learners
needed to derive their own satisfaction and pleasure from the process, suggesting that
much can be gained through experience.
What is clear in relation to behaviourism, and indeed, which is why it might be found it to
be so heavily teacher-focussed, is that its reliance on demonstrable behaviour fails
actively to engage the mind of the learner. Indeed, without engaging the learner beyond a
75
level of simple stimulus and response, learning becomes dangerously uncritical, and
lacking in emotional involvement (J. Henley, 2018). It might be argued that just as through
reinforcement, Skinner’s rats were taught to undertake specific actions, a pianist who is
repeatedly shown where Middle C is on the piano will eventually become proficient in
finding and playing it. What this fails to consider, is the wider context, for example, how
Middle C relates to other keys, the sound it makes and to the notation on the page. As
Fautley (2010, p. 45) states, ‘sensory-motor coordination is not enough to produce a
musical result’.
In connection to the learning of an instrument, previous research has highlighted that
much more needs to be considered in terms of the mind itself and wider social interaction
(Fautley, 2010). As Hargreaves (1986, p. 18) says, ‘it became apparent to many learning
theorists that the full complexity of human development could not be explained in terms of
simple learning principles without the introduction of some more mentalistic, or cognitive
constructs’.
4.3.2 Stage theory
Swiss-born Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) developed a theory which focussed
specifically on how children think and learn; in particular, how they acquire knowledge,
how their cognitive development is different to adults, and how that development can be
divided into stages (Jarvis & Chandler, 2001). Recognising that children are intrigued by
the environment around them, he suggested that it is through these environmental
interactions that learning proceeds. In order for such learning to proceed, however,
children need to make meaning from their experiences (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). In
addition to creating meaning of the world around them, Piaget argued that children
needed to understand the rules by which the world functions, and that these are
assimilated as the brain matures, rather than through experience. It is from this
understanding, that Piaget developed his stage theory (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).
Outlined in his seminal text, Psychology of the Child (1969) Piaget defined the first stage
in his theory to be that of ‘sensorimotor’ (ages 0-2) in which the main development is that
of sense and movement. It is at the end of this stage that children begin to increase in
mobility, and further seek to explore the environment around them. At the second stage,
or ‘preoperational’ stage (ages 2-7), Piaget recognised that a child begins to develop the
ability to think based upon symbolic thought, in addition to that based upon physical
sensation. Children were able to understand the idea of permanence, that is that although
a physical object might be out of sight, it is not out of mind. At this stage, Piaget also
asserted that in general, children could concentrate on only one thing at a time.
76
At the third stage, ‘concrete operational’ (ages 7-12), children begin to perform more
complex tasks, developing the ability to solve problems that are real or concrete, as
opposed to hypothetical scenarios. At the final stage, ‘formal operational’ (ages 12-19),
children are now able to solve hypothetical problems, engaging also in the use of abstract
terms. Whilst Piaget’s theories are well recognised within the field of child psychology and
development, one of the criticisms levelled is that the essence of childhood has changed,
and that the application of ages at the four stages should be more fluid (Flanagan, 1998;
Mitchell & Ziegler, 2007). Indeed, Jacobi (2005, p. 37) argues that Piaget’s stages,
particularly in terms of their age bandings, cannot be seen as ‘definitive’. That said, even
in today’s fast-paced and technologically-driven world, much in childhood music education
can be observed in relation to Piaget’s stages, for example:
‘Children might be expected to play in a particular way at a particular age/stage,
and there would be generalised, sequential pathways of musical play that would
be anticipated as the child matures.’
(Huhtinen-Hildén & Pitt, 2018, p. 15)
Some have argued that Piaget’s assertion that children learn best in isolation is out of step
with modern thinking in education (Aubrey & Riley, 2016), although this could, of course,
favour the concept of one-to-one instrumental teaching.
What is important to note about Piaget’s stage theory is that children are seen to develop
more or less naturally in response to the world around them (Moore, 2012). Whilst we
tend to associate behaviourist theories of learning with the notion of teacher-dominance,
Piaget’s stage theory focuses on the child as an active maker of meaning (Moore, 2012).
This is an idea which has come under criticism from those who favour teacher-led
learning, something which in the UK, has been favoured by Conservative governments in
relation to learning in schools (Moore, 2012).
Piaget’s stage theory has often been applied in music education settings, and I shall
return later in this chapter to consider it in relation to the construction of knowledge. Whilst
Piaget set out a means by which a child’s cognitive development might be understood and
responded to, in addition to this understanding, teachers, and indeed all adults, need to
be equipped with the critical skills required in order to assess a child’s progress against
particular stages, something which could be applied wherever a comparison to a
benchmark is required (Garnett, 2013). This raises a potential problem in its application to
instrumental teaching where there are no agreed benchmarks; however, it might be
loosely applied in assessing a child’s development against the progression of an exam
syllabus for example. All that said, Piaget’s stage theory was an important development. It
moved beyond the behaviourist idea in the sense that it set children’s learning against an
77
environmental backdrop, arguing that their development took place in response to
experiences of and interaction with the environment around them. Indeed, theories of
developing expertise recognise that progression, or lack of progression, does not simply
occur as a result of perceived inherited ability (Hallam & Bautista, 2012).
4.3.3 Constructivism
Although his theories were not necessarily defined as such, the roots of constructivism
can be found in Piaget’s stage theory. According to Bartlett and Burton (2016, p. 246),
constructivism is the idea that ‘people make their own sense of things in a unique way’.
The theory places importance on the nature of learners learning as individuals, and the
way in which they assimilate new information in terms of their former ‘knowledge,
experiences, beliefs and attitudes’ (Bartlett & Burton, 2016, pp. 246–247). From a teacher-
learner point of view, this places the emphasis upon the teacher to create situations in
which an individual learner can construct their own knowledge, the teacher’s primary
function being to facilitate, guide and support. One of the features of constructivism is that
in order for an individual’s understanding to move forward, their mind needs to be
disturbed (Fosnot & Perry, 2005).
It has been suggested (Welch et al., 2004, p. 262) that unlike other curriculum subjects,
science for example, ‘constructivist views of learning appear to have had less impact on
the teaching of music’. Welch et al. (2004) suggest this is potentially because the focus of
music education research is rarely on teachers’ roles, and this is one of the reasons why,
in my study, I have looked specifically at teachers’ views, beliefs and attitudes. It is worth
noting that early constructivist theories such as those of Piaget have formed the basis for
a developing understanding of musical development (Gooding & Standley, 2011), so the
assertion that such views have had little impact does not exist without challenge.
Cope (1998, p. 263) argues that constructivism has had a major impact on music
education ‘such that the belief that children learn by passively soaking up pre-determined
chunks of knowledge is now very much less prevalent’. Indeed, Ofsted criteria for
assessing music in the classroom advocated an ‘environment where learning experiences
are designed which allow the student to engage actively in music learning’ (Major, 1996,
p. 184). Garnett (2013, p. 161) references the constructivist nature of the National
Curriculum in the UK, saying that in terms of music, learning is essentially about ‘cognitive
development’. All these things suggest that constructivism has had a clear impact in music
education. Indeed, McPhail (2013) suggests that music educators now, have much still to
learn from the constructivist theories of learning.
78
4.3.4 Spiral learning
It is worth pausing briefly to consider the work of Bruner (1960), and in particular, his
concept that in the curricula, it was not necessarily depth that was important, but rather,
breadth. His concept of ‘spiralling’ argued that rather than learners making incremental
progress, step-by-step, they might also step sideward and backward. He suggested that
unlike Piaget’s stage theory in which children pass through pre-defined stages of
development, learners progress by building upon and revisiting prior learning. Whilst there
are many similarities in their work, and indeed, both have constructivism at their heart,
Bruner was concerned with the process by which learners return to previous learning and
understanding in light of new learning experiences (Moore, 2012; Scott, 2008).
Bruner divided development into three stages. In the ‘enactive’ stage, children learn
themselves through play action. In the second stage, termed the ‘iconic’ mode, children
begin to comprehend images, pictures and numbers. In the third stage, that of the
‘symbolic’ mode, children understand abstract concepts, language and reason (Bruner,
1960). What is perhaps most important to note about Bruner’s theories, is the value he
placed on culture and environment. Bruner recognised that culture had a significant
impact on a child’s learning and development, and, over time, he became increasingly
concerned about the effect of social injustice on this (Bruner, 1996), something which also
concerned Freire (1996).
Reid (2001) suggests a similar progression in music education; five levels in which pupils
progress from learning an instrument, to learning to express personal meaning through
playing the instrument. Likewise, the Swanwick-Tillman spiral of learning to compose
suggested four stages between the age of three and 15, those of materials, expression,
form and value (Swanwick & Tillman, 1986). Hargreaves and Galton (Hargreaves, 1996;
Hargreaves & Galton, 1992), and Lamont (1998) have also made the case for similar
developmental frameworks which build on the theories of Piaget and Bruner (Welch et al.,
2004), although some (Partington, 2017) have criticised the Swanwick-Tillman spiral as
implying there is a ‘normal’ developmental pattern.
Bruner’s approach to learning, in which the notion of discovery is at its heart, is one of
‘scaffolding’ (Bruner, 1960). That is the idea that a learner is helped by an experienced
‘other’, for example, a teacher or other adult, by ‘starting tasks, simplifying problems and
highlighting errors to a point where the child can do tasks for themselves’ (Aubrey & Riley,
2016, p. 109). For such ‘scaffolding’ to be effective, it required a continual shift of
responsibility from the more experienced ‘other’, to the learner.
79
As highlighted by the notion of ‘scaffolding’, Bruner’s theories are particularly pertinent in
terms of the role of the teacher. He argued that teachers need to reflect on the way in
which they engage with learners, and that it was vital that they acted as both a ‘motivator
and a catalyst’ (Aubrey & Riley, 2016, p. 108). This is something also previously
highlighted in the field of instrumental teaching, especially in relation to the need for
teacher self-reflection (Bjøntegaard, 2015; Carey & Grant, 2015; Carey, Harrison, &
Dwyer, 2017; Küpers, Van Dijk, & Van Geert, 2014). Bruner suggested that as part of the
learning process, children needed to explore and discover, and as a consequence of that,
teaching needs to be about more than simply delivering facts (Aubrey & Riley, 2016). In
the light of Bruner’s theories, Moore (2012, p. 23) suggests that ‘it is pedagogically
misleading for the teacher to assume that there is one standard way or set of ways in
which learning takes place’.
4.3.5 Social constructivist theories
Social constructivism is, in some ways, a natural progression from constructivism itself,
the essence of the theory being that knowledge and meaning is constructed not only in
relation to an individual’s prior experiences, but in relation to their continuing interaction
with others and the world around them. Whilst Bruner in particular was concerned with the
way in which development and learning occurred as a result of interaction with the
environment, it was the Russian researcher and theorist, Vygotsky (1978, 1986) who
argued more prominently for the consideration of social interaction and its effect on
learning.
At the heart of Vygotsky’s theories was the idea that in addition to the influence of culture
and environment, an individual’s learning was facilitated through understanding the social
and cultural interactions from which that learning derives (Vygotsky, 1986). In Vygotsky’s
writings of the early 1930s, not published in the West until after his death in 1937, he
argued that learning occurred as a result of historical process, social process and
mediation, that is the employing the tools of language, number and symbol. Vygotsky
argued that thoughts and feelings are gradually trained to slot into historically determined
cultural systems (van der Veer, 2012). What is important to understand here is that
Vygotsky argued that rather than waiting for a child’s natural development to take its
course as they mature (e.g. Piaget’s stage theory), teachers can actually influence that
development. In particular, Vygotsky’s theories suggest that as well as teaching being
student-centred, it should also offer space for children to ‘verbally elaborate developing
concepts…that involve the teacher in something approaching a partnership model’
(Moore, 2012, p. 14). In Vygotsky’s own words, ‘human learning presupposes a specific
social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those
80
around them’ (1978, p. 88). Vygotsky believed that social interaction was crucial to
cognitive development (van der Veer, 2012). Essentially, Vygotsky’s model of education
was one at odds with what might be termed the traditional one where the teacher acts as
a transmitter, and student as a receiver. Vygotsky was concerned that knowledge can
become framed within ‘elaborate systems of technical terms’ (van der Veer, 2012, p. 8),
something which could render it exclusive to certain groups.
Vygotsky developed the ideas surrounding what he termed to be the ‘zone of proximal
development’, (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) a ‘gap, expressed in ‘mental age’, between
what a child can do unassisted and what that same child can achieve with the benefit of
adult assistance’ (Moore, 2012, p. 15). The idea is a controversial one, not least in
determining the meaning of ‘mental age’. Indeed, Vygotsky himself was unsure, but still,
the main point to be derived is that children’s progress cannot be assessed by mere
standardised tests alone (Lambert & Lines, 2000), and that the acquisition of skill and
knowledge is dependent on learners working and conversing with others through social
interaction (Moore, 2012). Indeed, previous research (Jørgensen, 2002) has highlighted
the need for discussions surrounding student responsibility and independence, to be
carried out within a social context.
It is of note that Vygotsky’s ideas began to emerge in the 1920s and 1930s but did not
come to prominence until the 1980s (Aubrey & Riley, 2016) at which time the Cold War
was coming to an end, and relations between Russia and the rest of the world began to
improve. In some ways, it might be considered that social constructivism came after
constructivism, but they in fact developed at the same time, and would have almost
certainly interacted earlier had they not been supressed by political restrictions.
In relation to music education, some (Küpers, Van Dijk, Van Geert, & McPherson, 2015, p.
354) have argued that learning to play an instrument comes as a result of ‘the joint effort
of the teacher and student is to push the boundaries of the zone of proximal
development’. Similarly, Roesler (2016, p. 3) suggests that in relation to Vygotsky’s ZPD,
instrumental learners may acquire new skills and knowledge ‘through the assistance of a
more knowledgeable other - a teacher’. Andrews (2013, p. 129) suggests that
apprenticeship is key to the concept of ZPD, and as a result, ‘might be the most
appropriate for instrumental tuition’. However, Kastner (2014, p. 75) notes that:
‘teachers may struggle in implementing social constructivist practices and face
several “conceptual,” “pedagogical,” “cultural,” and “political dilemmas” as they not
only develop new skills but also “reorient” their personal philosophies.’
81
This highlights the competing cultures of both teacher and pupil, and the identity shifts
required in order to collaborate fully, something highlighted in previous research (Abramo,
2014; Partington, 2017). Unlike constructivism where the mind of the learner needs to be
disturbed, in social constructivism, both the mind of the teacher and learner need to be
disturbed in order for learning to take place. This links with Vygotsky’s notion of ZPD and
the need to push boundaries, summarised by van der Veer (2012, p. 13) who writes
‘children can profit from education when it falls outside of their zone of proximal
development’.
Vygotsky’s theories (1978, 1986) assert that rather than simply being able to regurgitate
facts, in the same way they might perform a repetitive physical action, learners need to
achieve ‘conscious mastery’ over what they have learned. He was keen that children
should acquire the skills of independent processes of learning rather than simply
memorisation, and this also has an impact upon the transferability of skills between
subject areas (Moore, 2012). Previous research (Carey, Bridgstock, Taylor, McWilliam, &
Grant, 2013) has found that such an approach in instrumental learning increases student-
ownership of the interactions taking place.
In consideration of the nature of music-making, it is hard to detach it from its existence as
a social entity. There are obvious instances where social interaction takes place in music-
making, for example, an orchestra, choir, or ensemble. In addition to these more formal
settings, informal music-making such as a get-together for adult learners, also embraces
social interaction. In fact, the very essence of playing for and with other people is a social
interaction, even if it is just between pupil and teacher. This collaborates closely with
Vygotsky’s theory which emphasises the importance of social interaction. Indeed,
‘instrumental music learning is rooted in participation and comprises (mediated) goal-
directed action’ (Burnard & Dragovic, 2015, p. 6).
As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1), I approach this research from a social
constructivist standpoint. As a private teacher myself, I have always stood by my
assertion that learning an instrument should be about more than just a weekly one-to-one
lesson. Indeed, even as a private teacher, I have highlighted the importance of community
within my own studio setting. In practical terms, this has resulted, for example, in a termly
newsletter and a Facebook page for pupils to interact. I have also sought to develop
opportunities for group interaction in the form of workshops, pupil concerts and informal
performance opportunities. I have seen, at first-hand, the immense benefits pupils gain
from meeting other learners and interacting socially. Although my personal belief is that
learning an instrument should encompass more than one-to-one lessons, J. Henley (2009,
p. 90) offers a note of caution, saying:
82
‘If the learner wishes only to learn for the sake of learning an instrument and has
no desire to participate in the social creation of music, then being part of a
community of practice where the practice is that of learning an instrument on an
individual basis may suffice.’
It is, however, through social constructivism that it is possible to see the boundaries
between teacher and pupil beginning to blur, and as previous research (Küpers et al.,
2014) has stated, an overlap between teacher and pupil actions.
4.3.6 Situated learning and apprenticeship
It might seem on first glance that there are many similarities between the works of
Vygotsky (1978, 1986) and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ideas around situated learning;
however, in the case of the latter, learning is socially situated, that is, the emphasis is
strongly on the social participation, nurturing of relationships, and shared purpose. In the
words of Gredler (2005, p. 8), situated learning ‘should be viewed as sociocultural
approaches instead of social constructivist’. In essence, the theory of situated learning is
underpinned by the idea that a person learns in the situation they are in, and as a
progression from that, ‘learning is an integral part of generative social practice in the lived-
in world’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 35).
Lave and Wenger (1991) were particularly interested in the concept of apprenticeships.
Their theory of legitimate peripheral participation emerged from research into ‘craft
apprentices’ conducted in the USA. The original research suggested that unlike the
traditional view of apprenticeships, learning was significantly more complex. It involved
social interaction and ‘was not just a routine’ and, unlike behaviourism, not simply a
‘mechanistic matter of the learner copying what is done by the old-timer or master’
(Aubrey & Riley, 2016, p. 172). The important outcome of the research into craft
apprentices was that all except butchers offered ‘effective learning opportunities’ (Aubrey
& Riley, 2016, p. 172). The research found that all the apprenticeships were concerned
with the development of an increasing level of knowledge and participation which was
used to overcome difficulties encountered. This links with Vygotsky’s earlier ideas around
ZPD.
Through further analysis, Lave and Wenger (1991) found that different apprenticeships
had differing levels of ‘situatedness’. In the cases where this was most effective, they
found that legitimate peripheral participation was embraced by the community as a whole.
Thus, they found that through legitimate peripheral participation, practitioners were able to
learn from more experienced peers and, in time, becoming fully-fledged members of the
community. By new members joining, and others leaving, a community is constantly
83
evolving (Creech & Gaunt, 2012). Aubrey and Riley (2016, p. 173) define such a
community as ‘a truly interactive and dynamic practice’. Participation is centred around
interpretations of knowledge which are socially situated, which, in turn, lead to a shared
view and understanding between trainers and novices. Above all, Lave and Wenger’s
theories were centred around learning in a social context:
‘The individual learner is not gaining a discrete body of abstract knowledge which
(s)he will then transport and reapply in later contexts. Instead, (s)he acquires the
skill to perform by actually engaging in the process.’
(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 14)
As a follow on to their earlier work (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and in response to a largely
institution-based and individual-centred approach to learning, Wenger (2008) developed
the idea of communities of practice. The primary beliefs that underpin this theory are that
learners are ‘active participants in the practices of social communities’ and are
‘constructing identities in relation to these communities’ [emphasis in original] (Wenger,
2008, p. 4). The basis of a community of practice is that it is underpinned by social
interaction, and that as individuals learn, so their identities change, the communities are
refined, and that organizations become effective through the connecting of these
communities. The potential benefits to instrumental teaching, and indeed, to music
education in general, to be derived from the ideas of a communities of practice have been
previously documented (Bjøntegaard, 2015; Jørgensen, 2000; Kenny, 2014, 2016;
Lennon, 1996; Virkkula, 2015).
The three underlying features of a community of practice are therefore defined by Wenger
as a shared repertoire, mutual engagement, and joint enterprise. In other words, members
of the group use a range of tools, actions and artefacts, to support and work with each
other in a way that not only ‘shapes what we do, but also who we are and how we
interpret what we do’ (Wenger, 2008, p. 4). Wenger (2008, p. 5) subsequently put forward
a theory that ‘meaning’, ‘practice’, ‘community’ and ‘identity’ were all required in order to
facilitate social engagement, and thus, learning and knowing.
It is pertinent to note Wenger’s point that whilst participants in a community of practice,
whether they be institutions or individuals, may attempt to exert power over a community,
this is always mediated by the ‘community’s production of practice’ (Wenger, 2008, p. 80).
Socially-mediated learning highlights a far greater overlap between teacher and pupil
identities (Küpers et al., 2014). This ongoing negotiation and collaboration is embodied in
the idea of ‘mutual accountability’, central to which is the treatment of information and
resources as ‘something to be shared’ (Wenger, 2008, p. 81). The result of this is a
situation in which no one person is the single dominant force in a community, and thus,
84
this is in opposition to earlier theories such as behaviourism which are often seen to be
teacher-dominant.
A one-to-one private music lesson, even though it is a transaction conducted between
teacher and pupil is a scenario to which the idea of a community of practice can still be
applied. A private teacher-pupil relationship is one of collaboration in which learning
progresses ‘within a common cause or profession’ (Bartlett & Burton, 2016, p. 250). Both
teacher and pupil belong to numerous communities of practice beyond the private lesson
itself, and therefore bring much in terms of learning and knowing from outside. For
example, teachers may have formed communities of practice with the institutions at which
they studied, and indeed, this can have a significant effect upon their teaching. The
embracing of cultural traditions is something central to any community; however,
communities of practice exist to both reinforce and challenge traditionally held concepts.
Jorgensen (2015, p. 2) notes that each musical community ‘has its own value sets’.
Henley (2009) cites the example of a learning ensemble as a community of practice, in
which participants’ learning evolves through their membership of the group. Applying the
same idea to a one-to-one private lesson, a pupil’s learning evolves not just through their
interaction with the teacher, but through social interactions and negotiated meanings
experienced in communities of practice elsewhere.
Music education, and instrumental learning in particular has often been linked to what has
been termed the ‘master-apprentice’ or ‘conservatoire’ model, something which Lehmann
et al. (2007, p. 187) define as a situation in which ‘the role of teachers is to tell of their
experiences and demonstrate their craft’, the result being that ‘students want to emulate
their teacher’s musical and professional life’. However, Young et al. (2003) cite it as a
teacher-dominant form of teaching in which pupils directly copy the model set by the
teacher, and Lehmann et al. (2007, p. 189) write that the teaching within this model is
‘technique-heavy’. Reid (2001) also highlights a limited learning experience tending to be
technique-dominant.
Robinson (2010, p. 5) says that ‘anyone embarking on a career as an instrumental
teacher in Britain has to accept the cultural significance of the traditional conservatoire
model of instrumental teaching’. That said, previous research has suggested that in some
cases whilst the master-apprentice model of teaching seems outdated, some pupils
expect this (Burwell, 2013, 2016b). Other research found that students, and perhaps
teachers too, assume that the ‘master’ is more important than the apprentice (Burwell,
2005) and that the teachers’ expertise is the dominant force in lesson interactions
(Rumiantsev, Maas, & Admiraal, 2017). Lehmann et al. (2007, p. 187) find the model to be
85
‘common’ in one-to-one settings and potentially characterised by a ‘one-way
communication’.
Some argue (V. Young et al., 2003, p. 140) that the sector is seeing a move away from
the ‘conservatoire model’ of teaching. Indeed, Lehmann et al. (2007, p. 187) refer to a
mentor-friend model which reflects a ‘greater exchange between teacher and student’, as
teachers seek to ‘facilitate student experimentation and provide musical ideas for the
student to consider’, allowing teachers to be ‘more responsive to the individual needs of
the students’. Previous research (Carey et al., 2013) found that where students were
taught in a predominantly transformative style, they felt mentored as a musician.
According to Lehmann et al. (2007) one of the reasons why the master-apprentice model
is still so widely accepted is because in order to adopt the mentor-friend model, teachers
need to give up a degree of autonomy; autonomy which is then taken up by the pupil
themselves. Previous research has suggested that the very nature of instrumental
teaching as a ‘conservative’ profession (Hallam, 1998) means that in the main,
instrumental teachers tend to stick with what they are comfortable (Baughman, 2015).
4.3.7 Metacognition and self-regulation
The theory of metacognition, often referred to as ‘learning to learn’, was first proposed by
the American developmental psychologist, John Flavell in the 1970s. Bartlett and Burton
(2016, p. 253) refer to it as the ‘process of coming to know more about one’s own learning
strategies, such as strategies for remembering, ways of presenting information when
thinking, [and] approaches to problems’. It is unsurprising therefore, that a number of
researchers have sought to apply the principles of metacognition to music education, not
least due to the nature of practising. Metacognition allows learners to not only understand
the demands of the pieces they are playing, but to select appropriate strategies to work on
pieces and thus to structure practice and learning effectively (Colombo & Antonietti,
2017). An understanding of and application of metacognitive principles was also seen as
something which, if possessed, applied and discussed by teachers, had the potential to
positively affect pupils’ own practice and performance, not least through the development
of independent learning skills (Hallam, 2001).
Another very closely related area to metacognition, is the notion of self-regulation, for if
pupils are ‘helped by their teachers to become more reflective and aware of processes
they are developing, they will become more able to take control of their learning’ (Bartlett
& Burton, 2016, p. 254). Research into self-regulation in relation to learners’ ability to
effectively practise has been well-documented (P. Evans & Bonneville-Roussy, 2015).
Bloom (1956) originally developed his ‘Taxonomies’ as a way to ensure that educational
86
assessment practices avoided the mere memorisation of facts. Through his three
domains: cognitive, affective and psychomotor, teachers were able to develop learning
objectives which sought to go beyond the factual. Similar approaches can also be applied
in the field of self-reflection and effective questioning, in other words, whether a question
elicits only a factual answer.
It should be noted that in addition to the application of self-regulation to learners, it can
also be applied to teachers themselves. Upitis and Brook (2015, p. 3) identified a three-
phase application of self-regulation to the professional development of independent music
teachers, notably in ‘planning, doing and reflecting’. Once again, the study linked the
teachers’ developing understanding of self-regulation as having a positive effect on their
own pupils’ learning who said that they found it both ‘attractive and accessible’ (Upitis &
Brook, 2015, p. 11). Whilst metacognition and self-regulation are closely associated, the
latter has been accused (Thoutenhoofd & Pirrie, 2015) of losing sight of the social aspect
of the learning process in favour of focussing more closely on the individual learner.
4.4 Knowledge
Having explored learning theories which describe the way in which knowledge is
constructed and formed, it is appropriate to consider what knowledge actually is. As I have
illustrated in reference to the learning theories outlined above, the way in which
knowledge is formed can take many different trajectories, from those who see knowledge
as pre-defined facts to be transmitted, to those who see knowledge as something which is
socially constructed. I will begin by briefly considering the aims and objectives of learning
an instrument, as highlighted in the literature.
There are no universally agreed aims and objectives for instrumental teaching. Brown
(1994, p. 8) writes that the important outcome of musical training is ‘proficiency on a
musical instrument’. Chappell (1999, p. 259) argues that learners need to be ‘musically
literate’ but should ‘also play by ear, internalise and improvise confidently’. Indeed, the
skill of playing by ear is highlighted elsewhere (Varvarigou, 2014). Mills and Smith (2003)
found variable aims amongst instrumental teachers. One teacher said their aim was to try
to ‘lay the foundations for good technique and habits, while trying to keep lessons fun and
interesting’, thus a music-specific aim. Mawer (1999, p. 180) argues that:
‘Instrumental teaching – and the teaching of performance in the broadest sense –
must never be merely about technique and physicalities, but rather about the
holistic development of musicianship…powers of thought, analysis, evaluation,
communication, and self-development, including that of the teacher.’
87
At a past ISM conference (Ward, 2004a, p. 192), Dr Andrew Padmore, head of the Private
Teacher’s Section of the ISM, listed these aims and objectives as being those he believed
instrumental teachers should adhere to in their lessons:
‘Develop skills in musical understanding and performance; Give the tools for
achieving artistic and intellectual fulfilment; Build a rapport, with respect and trust;
Increase confidence; Help in the development of a wide range of personality and
communication qualities.’
What this demonstrates is a huge range of views about what the purpose of instrumental
learning and teaching should be, and from this, it is easy to see why previous research
has highlighted a lack of agreement as to what should be taught (Baughman, 2015;
Lennon & Reed, 2012).
4.4.1 Philosophy of knowledge
Existing research (Morgan, 1998) suggests that instrumental teachers lack an
understanding of the philosophy of music education. However, in order to explore the
concept of knowledge further, it is necessary first to understand some of the philosophical
viewpoints which underpin our relationship, not just with music education, but with music
itself. In the Ancient World, music is found as something which existed for primarily ‘social
and ethical uses and values’ (Elliott, 2012, p. 17). In such societies, music was a ‘social
praxis’, ‘praxial’, or ‘pragmatic in its nature and value’ (Elliott, 2012, p. 17). The same can
be said for the existence of music in many other world cultures, and in some areas, this
continues to be the case today. Music existed primarily as a social entity, and whilst
people were not disconnected from the concept of the sound itself, it was ‘heard’ in
relation to ‘historical/social/cultural needs, experiences, values and contexts’ (Elliott, 2012,
p. 18).
Although aestheticism in music had existed previously, it rose to prominence in the
context of the Western Classical Tradition in the eighteenth century, whereby the ‘value of
music resides entirely in the formal structures of musical “works” - in “the music itself”’
(Elliott, 2012, p. 18). In many ways, music, which had previously been seen as something
which existed in social and practical terms, was now seen as ‘artistic’, that is, its value
was judged as if it were a fixed object being compared to other fixed objects. It was at this
time that music was elevated to a special ‘aesthetic realm’, separated from the lives of the
ordinary people whose experiences it had once encompassed. Väkevä (2012, p. 4)
highlights this, saying:
‘Musical practice was rationalized as a means of mediating between a discordant
everyday world and the harmonious order of the world of ideas. As a
consequence, musical value was elevated to the ideal sphere; musical sense
88
perception (or aesthesis) was subjugated to universal concord, best grasped by
theoretical speculation.’
Gilbert (2015, p. 68) sums up this philosophical shift, saying that it was at that time, ‘the
gods and mysteries fell away, and suddenly we put all the credit and blame for creativity
on the artists themselves…in the process, we also venerated art and artists beyond their
appropriate stations’. As Väkevä (2012, p. 8) writes, ‘modernity built its claims to the
pedagogical significance of music on the core notion that fine arts were created
specifically for aesthetic judgement or appreciation’. It is from this point that much thinking
in relation to music education has emerged, to the point of causing ‘many music teachers
to assume that everything that is not “serious” music is merely popular, entertainment, or
mass music’ (Elliott, 2012, p. 19). It is through this that it can be seen why the desire to be
a classical concert soloist is still seen by many people, and institutions, as the pinnacle of
musical learning (Burwell, 2013; Cope, 1998; Sloboda, 2008). Indeed, previous research
(Daniel & Bowden, 2013) found that whilst popular styles of music often proved more
popular with pupils, music from the Western Classical Tradition still dominated lessons.
The aesthetic value of music has tended to underpin the school music curriculum in the
UK. In reference to the position in the 1970s, Walker (2001, p. 3) writes:
‘In England, an educated musician was someone who knew Western music
history, theory, and musical forms, and had a wide repertoire at their disposal, as
well as being a competent performer in the repertory of the Western Canon. A
good music educator applied this knowledge in teaching pupils and ensured that
they performed and studied widely.’
On the introduction of the National Curriculum in England in 1988, Walker (2001, p. 4)
highlights the ongoing reinforcement of the aesthetic value which began at university level
and beyond, and gradually permeated down the education system:
‘The UK curriculum in all subjects at the secondary level was directly shaped and
at the same time bounded by the subject contents of the national examination
system for students aged 16 and 18 years, the General Certificate in Education
(GCE), the content of which was decided on by university-run committees.’
As Swanwick (1988, p. 9) found in relation to the National Curriculum in schools ‘the
curriculum seemed largely determined by the ‘philosophy’, that is to say the theoretical
perspective of individual teachers’.
It is pertinent to pause and consider the work of theorist John Dewey. Dewey’s seminal
text was his 1934, Art as Experience (Dewey, 2005). Above all, Dewey argued that human
needs and interests result in an experience which is ‘had’ rather than ‘known’ (Väkevä,
2012). In other words, Dewey argued that if we confined aesthetic experience merely to
89
the judgement of particular objects, ‘we compromise our recognition of its vital role in
human life’ (Väkevä, 2012, p. 10). Dewey suggested that it is perfectly possible to have an
experience without knowledge, and by consequence, ‘the idea of art education is not to
control but to fertilize experience’ (Väkevä, 2012, p. 19). This is an important
consideration for music education as it suggests that as valuable as it might be to know
about music, it is equally valuable to experience it. Dewey argued that humans do not
exist merely to acquire knowledge, but to experience things which require more than just
knowing (Väkevä, 2012). Paynter (1992) cites the work of Dewey in connection with music
education saying that in contrast to the views in the 1700s, the mind is now seen as
contributing to the process of understanding in an active way. In other words, education is
an active process.
The evolution of education in the United States was somewhat different, and during the
20th century, was heavily influenced by the ideas of Dewey. In music education, this
translated into a system where:
‘all children were considered equal and important and all knowledge was to be
made available to all children who were encouraged to learn in their own way and
time, most importantly starting with their music, even if some never found out
about anyone else’s.’
(Walker, 2001, p. 5)
Tongue-in-cheek, Sloboda (2008, pp. 82–83) gives a summary of music education in
much of the 20th century and possibly beyond, saying:
‘Classical artworks (as epitomised by Bach or Beethoven) represent the pinnacle
of musical value. Deeper appreciation and understanding of such artworks is the
most important (and universally applicable) aim of music education…Music is
necessarily taught by people trained in the understanding and performance of the
classical canon…whatever broadening of the syllabus is contemplated, music
education must remain controlled by those who have been through a full classical
training themselves, since this remains the pinnacle of the musical pyramid, to
which all, in the end, aspire.’
This demonstrates the complex debate when considering music and value, and illustrates
why reaching any kind of agreement in relation to a philosophy of music education will
always be challenging.
Reimer (1970) was one of the first people to cultivate anything approaching a philosophy
of music education that was taken up by the wider establishment. One of the challenges
of a US education system which sought to encompass all, and in which children learnt
music through playing in bands and singing in choirs, was that it resulted in high dropout
rates. Reimer argued for ‘the worth of music for all children through listening’ (J. Henley,
90
2018, p. 277). At the heart of Reimer’s philosophy was that music essentially equals
‘works of music’, and that ‘musical works are valuable because they are symbols of
human feeling that educate feeling when we listen aesthetically, or make music’ (Elliott,
2012, p. 15). Reimer placed much emphasis on listening as being the activity which
underpinned our understanding of music. Reimer defined a musical work as ‘sound
organised to be expressive’, and this led to Reimer’s assertion that only ‘good music’
should be taught; in other words that music embodies an expressive form (Daugherty,
1996).
Overall, Reimer considered that listening should be the main focus of music education,
and that an emphasis on performance reduced people’s ability to develop ‘aesthetic
sensitivity’ (Daugherty, 1996). Reimer’s philosophy of music education reinforced the
situation in the UK, and only served to reiterate music’s aesthetic value and its existence
as an ‘elitist subject’ (J. Henley, 2018, p. 277). Although Reimer had done much to
advance our consideration of music education philosophy, he was not without his critics.
Reid (1974, p. 154) argues that even if it is true that ‘knowledge of art is a form of
“knowing-that”’, the:
‘total importance for human beings of art as a unique form of knowledge could
never begin to be compassed, or even indicated, in this partial and conceptually-
bound account of knowledge.’
In contrast to the concept of ‘absolute music’ (J. Henley, 2018, p. 280), Elliott (1995, p. 14)
sought to develop a new approach which was ‘fundamentally different from and
incompatible with music education’s official aesthetic philosophy’. Elliot saw music as
something which people do, and this manifests itself both in listening to and making music
(Daugherty, 1996). Elliott differs from Reimer predominantly due to the fact that rather
than fixed entities, he sees musical works as ‘the outcomes of particular music making
practices, the product of musical thinking in action’ (Daugherty, 1996).
Elliott was particularly keen on the acquisition and development of musicianship,
something which he saw as ‘procedural knowledge’, or ‘knowing how’, as opposed to the
more formal ‘knowing that’ (Daugherty, 1996). Elliott (2005, p. 11) states that
‘musicianship is the key to achieving the values and aims of music education’. Elliott
(2005, p. 11) also sees musicianship as something which is ‘context-sensitive’ or
‘situated’, in other words, ‘the precise nature and content of musicianship and listening
differ from one musical practice to another’, something that can be linked to Lave and
Wenger’s idea of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The combination of music as
both cognition and action, led to the development of his ‘praxial’ philosophy of music
education.
91
Elliott (2005, p. 9) was also concerned with the social aspect of music making, saying
‘musical pieces and musical style-communities (or practices) constitute and are
constituted by their social contexts’. Elliott’s (2005, p. 11) philosophy is clear in terms of
what learners should be taught:
‘all music students ought to be taught in the same basic way: through performing,
improvising, composing, arranging, conducting, and, of course, listening to live and
recorded music whenever possible. Listening ought to be taught and learned in
direct relation to the music that students are learning to make.’
Beyond simply considering the aesthetic value of a musical work, Elliott (2005, p. 14)
argues that an ‘understanding of the nature and significance of music involves more than
an understanding of pieces or works of music’. It is interesting to note, that despite this,
previous research (Daniel & Bowden, 2013; Jorgensen, 1986; Upitis et al., 2017) suggests
that it is the repertoire itself which is often considered the most important aspect of
instrumental teaching.
Like Dewey and Elliott, Paynter and Aston (1970) recognised the value of experience. At
the heart of their approach to music education was a belief that education ‘does not begin
with specialist boxes filled with facts to be memorised’ (Paynter & Aston, 1970, p. 2), and
that knowledge is gained through practical experience. Rather than music being seen as a
collection of ‘highly-developed disciplines’ (Paynter & Aston, 1970, p. 2), they suggested it
is made up of a range of areas of experience. As with the work of Elliott (2005) and Lave
and Wenger (1991) discussed above, Paynter and Aston (1970) argued that music as a
discipline does not reside alone in a box, and that knowledge comes from the experience
of living. As they point out, even music history cannot be detached from people’s lived
experiences. It is interesting to note that Paynter and Aston (1970, p. 2) differentiate
between those ‘concerned solely with certain clearly-defined skills such as the techniques
of playing musical instruments’ and those teaching music as part of a child’s general
education. Ultimately, Paynter and Aston (1970) argued that music education should be
child-centred from the start so as to meet the needs of each individual, and that teachers
should not control the work.
Swanwick (1996, p. 104) terms knowledge to be ‘problematic’, stating that ‘it is impossible
to specify what is worthwhile and desirable in any universal sense’. That said, during the
latter part of the 20th century, he contributed much to developing our understanding of
knowledge in relation to music education. Swanwick (1994) sought to divide knowledge
into two broad categories, those being propositional and direct. Swanwick (1994) defined
propositional knowledge as ‘knowing that’, in other words, factual knowledge. Whilst he
acknowledges the value of propositional knowledge in music education, he is primarily
92
concerned with direct knowledge, something he terms ‘acquaintance knowledge’
(Swanwick, 1994, p. 17). This aligns with Paynter and Aston (1970) who, as discussed
above, cautioned against a reliance on factual knowledge.
Swanwick (1994) divided acquaintance knowledge into three layers: ‘knowing how’,
‘knowing this’ and ‘knowing what’s what’. Swanwick (1994) defined the first layer,
‘knowing how’, as the materials and skills of music, in other words, knowledge displayed
in action. Paynter and Aston (1970) suggested that much could be learnt through the
exploration of such materials. Whilst Swanwick (1994, p. 17) values ‘knowing how’, he
also recognises its limitations, saying ‘skills allow us to find our way into music but they
can also divert us from further musical understanding’. Swanwick (1994) argued that to
advance our understanding of music, knowledge by acquaintance was necessary, of
which the second layer is ‘knowing this’. He defines this layer as comprising expression
and form, areas of understanding of music which transcend mere skills and materials, in
other words the ‘knowing how’.
Finally, Swanwick (1994, p. 19) identifies a third layer, that of ‘knowing what’s what’. He
states (1994, p. 19) that individuals can ‘respond to music with varying levels of
commitment, or with none at all’. He finds this engagement to be ‘deeply personal’, ‘highly
subjective’ and varying both from person to person, and from day to day (Swanwick, 1994,
p. 19). At the heart of this third strand is a sense of value. Firstly, there is music valued
directly ‘when we as individuals find quality in an encounter’, and secondly, there is a
recognition that music can hold value for others, even if we experience no personal
response to it (Swanwick, 1994, p. 20). Reimer (1989, p. 171) argued that ‘what people
choose to value is their own business’. The importance of value is also highlighted by
Paynter and Aston (1970) who highlight the way in which it helps individuals respond to
the world around them.
A common thread amidst this discussion of knowledge is the emphasis placed on the
situated nature of music, in other words, the placing of music within a wider context
(Elliott, 1995; Paynter & Aston, 1970; Reimer, 1989; Swanwick, 1994, 1999). It is
important to note, as argued by Swanwick (1994, p. 170), that ‘musical knowledge – whilst
arising in a social context – cannot be permanently locked into a cultural background’.
This in particular relates to the core features of a community of practice, for whilst these
may remain constant, a community continually evolves in response to social interaction
and construction of identities (Wenger, 2008). Just as Swanwick (1994) refers to the
materials of music, so Wenger (2008) refers to the tools of a community which shape who
individuals are and how they interpret what they do.
93
Swanwick (1996, p. 113) sought to articulate his own philosophy of music education, in
which he saw music as having meaning, which is ‘influenced by social settings but, at a
profound level, operates through the biological and psychological characteristics of human
beings’. This in itself highlights the range of interpretations of knowledge, but also the
importance of music as a social experience. It is clear that there is never likely to be any
universal agreement on what constitutes valid knowledge in music education, and in
general, it is defined as much by the individual teacher’s experiences, as it is by any
external influences. As stated by McCullough (2006, p. 91), Elliott criticised Reimer, and
Swanwick ‘in return, criticised Elliot’s interpretation’ of Reimer’s work. The philosophy of
knowledge in relation to music education continues to be much-contested, and as stated
by Swanwick (1999, p. 176), ‘ultimately, all “meaning”, all “knowledge” is a personal,
individual interpretation of life experience'.
4.5 Autonomy, power, control and choice
The autonomy of the private teacher poses a basic, but fundamental question: how do such
teachers choose what to teach? Lehmann et al. (2007, pp. 187–188) say that the primary
responsibility of the teacher is to determine what a student should learn and to devise the
best way of accomplishing it. They go on to say that a ‘curriculum indicates what content is
to be taught and in what order’. They further suggest that:
‘Whether or not they use a written, formal curriculum, all teachers make decisions
as to what their students will study and how to go about it. Taken together, the
individual decisions they make define the long-term music learning experiences of
their students.’
The importance of the instrumental teaching ‘curriculum’ cannot be overstated. It has far-
reaching consequences in terms of a pupil’s musical journey. That said, there is little
evidence to suggest how teachers arrive at a decision as to what to include as the content
of their lessons. Previous research (Baughman, 2015) suggests that teachers teach that
which they, themselves are comfortable with. Swanwick (1993, p. 148) sums this up,
saying:
‘When music making and music taking are abstracted from everyday psychological
and cultural life…it becomes necessary to make decisions as to what music is
included or excluded and how teaching and learning are to be managed.’
Swanwick (1993, p. 148) goes on to say that ‘what counts as academic knowledge is
largely defined by schools, colleges, teachers and assessment systems’. This highlights
two issues: firstly, private teachers do not have their curricula directly defined by schools
or colleges; and secondly, assessment is optional, in other words, not all pupils wish to
94
validate their skills and knowledge via an external assessment system. The challenges
faced by teachers are far-reaching, for, as Swanwick (1993, p. 151) says, how can
teachers be teaching ‘something that it is not agreed that anyone has the desire to know?’
4.5.1 Classification and framing
Bernstein (1971), was, like many others, concerned with social class, and the impact that
had on power and control, not just in education, but in many walks of life. In education, it
is often necessary to define what counts in terms of knowledge, and as a consequence of
that, what is taught. Bernstein (2000) refers to the classification of knowledge as the ‘voice
of power’. The way in which that knowledge is framed is ‘structured by social relations of
control’, in other words ‘the way knowledge is framed shapes the way the voice of power
is expressed’ (Wheelahan, 2010, p. 29).
Bernstein defined classification to be the boundary between different types of curricula. A
strong classification suggests a curriculum primarily made up of traditional subject
knowledge (Bernstein referred to this as a ‘collection’ type), whilst a weak classification, or
‘integrated’ type suggests very loose borders. Bernstein’s second layer, framing, offered a
means by which it is possible to establish ‘what matters as educational knowledge through
pedagogic practice in schools’. Framing offers a means to see how much control both
pupils and teachers have over the organisation and choice of knowledge. Thus, a strong
framing suggests a restricted choice, and a weak framing, greater choice and flexibility
(Goodson, 2001).
If these devices are considered in practice, it is important to note that Bernstein
considered the school curriculum in Europe to be of a ‘collection’ type, and that in England
particularly, the number of subjects of closed content reduces over time and leads to
specialization. As Bernstein (1975, p. 81) says, ‘with the more specialized form of
collection, as you get older you know more and more about less’. In other words, breadth
gradually narrows in favour of depth. Bernstein argued that it is partly through this, that
identity in education is ‘clearly marked and bounded’. Bernstein found that it was not
uncommon for there to be much dispute about where borders were to be placed between
subjects in terms of what should and should not belong. As a consequence of this,
Bernstein (1975, p. 82) suggests that:
‘Your membership category is established relatively early and your particular
status in a given collection is made clear by streaming, examining and a delicate
system of grades. Subject loyalty is systematically developed in pupils and
students, with the length of the educational life, and then transmitted by them as
teachers and lecturers. The system is self-perpetuating.’
95
Indeed, it has been previously argued that an approach such as a the master-apprentice
model of instrumental teaching embodies this self-perpetuation, as one generation learns
from the previous generation of ‘master teachers’ (Gaunt, 2008). This also suggests that
progression in music education favours children. For adults for whom such a membership
category was not established early on, progression outside of such as ‘system’ can be
problematic.
Bernstein found the collection type curriculum to be fairly rigid and hierarchical, and for
those who did not progress beyond the novice stages, he says it ‘can often be wounding,
and sometimes may even be seen as meaningless’ (Bernstein, 1975, pp. 82–83). By
contrast, the far more open integrated curriculum focusses on breadth rather than depth.
At its simplest level, the teacher has less control, and the pupil more choice. Bernstein
(1975, p. 83) states that:
‘Such a change in emphasis and pedagogy is likely to transform the teacher-pupil-
lecturer-student authority relationships, and in particular, increase the status and
thus the rights of the pupil or student.’
More recent research (Mark, 2007) found that where pupils were offered more choice,
they exhibited better learning behaviours which, through drawing on prior experience and
knowledge, greater exploited their potential.
Although the focus of difference between collection and integrated curricula might centre
around what is taught, it is equally focused on changing patterns of authority, power and
control (Bernstein, 1975). At the heart of Bernstein’s theory is that in order for teachers to
offer greater choice, they must themselves relinquish control, and thus, the knowledge
they transmit becomes more weakly framed. This has the potential to be problematic in
instrumental teaching, which has in the past, been concerned with the concept of the
‘master teacher’ being the expert, in opposition to the pupil as apprentice. In response to
such tensions, Bernstein (2000) outlined three ‘democratic rights’ to which all students
should be afforded: enhancement, inclusion, and participation. I discuss these further in
Chapter 4 (sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3) below.
4.5.2 Pedagogy of the Oppressed
Freire (1996, p. 52) argued that when examined at any level, the teacher-student
relationship might be analysed as a narrative in which the teacher narrates their subject to
the student who listens. Indeed, he argued that ‘education is suffering from narration
sickness’ (1996, p. 52). The problem, as he saw it, was that ‘education thus becomes an
act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the
96
depositor’ (Freire, 1996, p. 53). Freire used the analogy of ‘banking’ as a means to explain
the relationship in which the student becomes merely a receiver, filer and store of
knowledge without reference to and engagement with the world around them. Indeed,
Freire (1996, p. 53) says that in this approach ‘knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who
consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing’.
The outcome as Freire (1996) saw it, of this type of approach to education was one in
which students’ creative power is reduced or even eliminated. To this end, Freire labels
the teacher as the ‘oppressor’, and the student, the ‘oppressed’. In instrumental teaching,
it has previously been cited (Gaunt, 2008) that teacher-dominance can oppress a pupil’s
artistic voice. The result of such a relationship manifests itself in the need for the teacher
to dominate and thus retain, or even increase their control. Rather than facilitating a
situation in which the student is allowed to develop their own approach to problem-solving,
Freire (1996, p. 55) argues that the ‘more the oppressed can be led to adapt to that
situation, the more easily they can be dominated’. In more recent times, Jorgensen (2015)
has explored similar themes, asking why music educators should be concerned with
justice and social justice. Amongst her arguments is that which says an awareness of
issues relating to justice, can ‘enrich music education whilst also challenging its thought
and practice’ (Jorgensen, 2015, p. 19).
Freire (1996, p. 26) highlights the problem of such a relationship in terms of the power and
control wielded by the teacher. He goes on to suggest that teachers often attempt to
‘soften’ their power in favour of the student; however, such an act ‘almost always
manifests itself in the form of false generosity’ in which this perceived ‘softening’ seeks
only to strengthen the control of the teacher. Indeed, Freire (1996, p. 26) asserts teachers
who approach education in this way ‘become desperate at the slightest threat to its
source’.
Whilst Freire’s analogies may seem extreme, there is no denying that much literature
refers to teacher-dominated relationships in music education. Coupled with the fact that
instrumental teaching is seen as a conservative profession (Hallam, 1998) reluctant to
change (Baughman, 2015), Freire’s notion of oppression is noteworthy, even if it is
predominantly an unintended consequence. Freire’s concept of ‘banking’ in education ties
in with the behaviourist theories outlined in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.1) above, versus, that
of student problem-solving, something which has social constructivism at its heart. Ward
(2004b, p. 252) compares instrumental teaching to an approach likened to engineering,
where the concern is with the construction and delivery of content, which, by necessity, is
teacher-led. Persson (1994, p. 231) cites the example of a clarinet teacher, Mrs
Greenfield, who ‘dominated lessons completely’. In the vein of Freire’s ‘banking’ analogy,
97
McPhail (2013, p. 230) suggests that the ‘individual instrumental lesson is characterized
by a teacher-dominated transmission of knowledge’.
Above all, Freire (1996, p. 53) sought to find a solution to what he saw as the ‘teacher-
student contradiction’, that is that they should become both teachers and students
simultaneously. He argued that through the concept of banking education, educational
practices merely mirrored those of society. Students’ social oppression experienced
outside the classroom was simply mimicked by the teacher, a figure who knows
everything, teaching those who know nothing. Research suggests (Rakena, Airini, &
Brown, 2016) that in the case of instrumental teaching, these kinds of relationships
prevail. The teacher chooses, and the students comply. The teacher is at the heart of the
learning process and the students are simply objects; passive receivers (Freire, 1996). All
of this leads to the minimizing or annulling of students’ ‘creative power’, and thus,
ultimately serves the interests of the teacher as oppressor (Freire, 1996, p. 54). Finney
(2016) has argued that schools embody the notion of banking education as they seek to
ensure that pupils are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to function in the
workplace.
Freire was not without his critics, some of whom argued that his was an over reaction.
Young (1998, p. 24) argued that Freire, whilst highlighting the problem with ‘curriculum as
fact’, failed to recognise the potential of social reality ‘which teachers act on, and thus
transform’. Henley (2009) writes that whilst Freire took into account the socio-cultural
environment, he saw this in itself as oppressive. Previous research found that in the wider
sphere of education, children can be unsure how they should express themselves
(Mackworth-Young, 1990b), and as a consequence, this can feed teacher dominance.
4.5.3 Foucault
Foucault, a French philosopher, attempted to unpick some of the ideas which surround
the application and our understanding of power, knowledge and control. Foucault (1979)
sought to challenge the traditional and conventional ways in which we think and relate
both to ourselves, and to others. As many have argued (Ball, 2013), Foucault’s ideas are
complex, difficult to understand, and in some cases, fairly abstract, but from someone who
sought to challenge our established ways of thinking, perhaps this is unsurprising.
At the heart of Foucault’s ideas was the concept that knowledge equals power. Foucault
was particularly interested in the notion of discourse, the language which is used to
communicate with one another. The idea that language is inherently related to knowledge
and power is one which Bernstein (1971, 1975, 2000) also wrote extensively about, as
98
highlighted in Chapter 4 (section 4.5.1) above. At the heart of the matter, is the argument
that the more specialised a language, and the more complex the terminology becomes,
the more exclusive that knowledge becomes. Although Foucault centred his text on
prisons, much can be applied to education, particularly the notion that such institutions are
concerned with their ability to govern subjects in a way which ensures their obedience to
the system.
Perhaps the most pertinent of Foucault’s ideas was that of discipline, the notion that in
such institutions, discipline is imposed from above in a way such as the subjects involved
can be controlled. Foucault argued that people can be judged by how much or how little
they differ from the accepted ‘norm’, and based upon those outcomes, ‘disciplinary
techniques can be used to homogenise and normalise, and, of course, exclusion can be
justified as a means to these ends’ (Allan, 2013, p. 25). As argued by Foucault (1979, p.
200), the danger of this control is that the subject, be they prisoner, or student, ‘is seen,
but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication’.
Above all, Foucault argued that human beings should both work towards, and be agents
of transformation (Oksala, 2007). On this basis, it is easy to see how Foucault’s ideas,
along with those of Freire and Bernstein previously mentioned, might precipitate a desire
for collaboration and community within educational institutions and practice.
4.5.4 Informal learning
The term ‘community music’ is a much contested one, but it is perhaps no surprise, that in
that field, practitioners have sought to move away from a traditional teacher-dominated
relationship. Camlin and Zesersen (2018, p. 16) argue that:
‘By experiencing their tutors’ approaches to facilitating their learning as being
situation-dependent and dialogic, it enables students to appreciate, in more
general terms, how control of the teaching-learning situation might be opened up
to, and shared with, learners more effectively.’
The authors see this as a way to resolve what Freire saw as the ‘teacher-student
contradiction’, whereby both teachers and students are students and teachers
simultaneously. Others (Georgii-Hemming & Westvall, 2010, p. 24) have also cited the
potential benefits of such an approach, particularly those of informal learning in which
students are provided with ‘opportunities to participate in their societies as active citizens,
both on a musical and more general level’. Similar benefits were also found by Narita
(2015), who highlights Freire’s concept of positioning the teacher as being not just in the
world, but with the world, and in conjunction with other people.
99
Much of the practice now loosely termed to be ‘community music’, has at its heart, the
theories and understanding of informal learning. Since the turn of the millennium, there
has been an increased interest, and as a result, research into the concept of informal
learning. Folkestad (2006, p. 136) highlights the shift from formal to informal as being
‘from teaching to learning’, and as a consequence of that, ‘from teacher to learner’. Whilst
in formal learning situations, often occurring in institutional settings, the emphasis is on
teaching methods, and thus, the results of those as seen from the teacher’s perspective,
in informal learning practices, the emphasis is on what is taught and how it is learnt
(Folkestad, 2006). In the field of community music, the notion of control is much debated,
and there is a strong emphasis placed on collaboration (Higgins, 2006). This suggests
that community music and its emphasis on collaboration, is a field which closely aligns
with the hallmarks of a community of practice, as discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.6).
Folkestad (2006, p. 136) makes a crucial point about the socio-cultural aspect of music
education, saying that:
‘the question of whether or not to have, for example, popular music in school, is
irrelevant: popular music is already present in school, brought there by the
students, and in many cases also by the teachers, as part of their musical
experience and knowledge.’
Previous research (Daniel & Bowden, 2013) in instrumental teaching found that teachers
cited popular styles as of greater interest to their pupils. Green (2005, p. 27) writes ‘music
educators in many countries have attempted to close the gap between two musical
worlds: that of pupils’ musical culture outside school and that of the classroom’. In that
sense, many believe that formal learning has much to learn from informal learning
practices. Indeed, rather than seeing formal and informal as opposites, they are simply
part of a wider continuum of learning (Folkestad, 2006). Again, as illustrated by the point
about popular music above, Folkestad (2006, p. 136) suggests that:
‘a lot of musical knowledge is acquired outside school, in informal musical
practices, and that this is the learning experience of many students, regardless of
whether they are small children, adolescents or adult students in Schools of Music
and teacher education programmes.’
However, previous research has highlighted potential problems in the application of
informal learning practices to instrumental learning. Echoing Paynter and Aston (1970), it
has been suggested that informal learning practices are not wholly conducive with
knowledge which many perceive has to be acquired in instrumental lessons (McPhail,
2013). Robinson (2012) found that it was teachers’ own experiences of informal learning
which dictated to what extent they applied these in their own teaching.
100
4.5.5 Espoused theory and theory-in-use
Argyris and Schön’s (1974) exploration of theory in practice emerged from a 1971 project
which sought to ascertain how educational administrators could effectively enter existing
schools to begin a process of reform. They considered whether ‘the trouble people have in
learning new theories of action may stem not so much from the inherent difficulty of the
new theories as from existing theories people have that already determine practice’
(Argyris & Schön, 1974, p. viii). From this, they examined such theory at two levels:
espoused theory and theory-in-use.
If someone is asked what they do, they will give their espoused theory for that situation.
This is a theory of action to which the individual ‘gives allegiance, and which, upon
request, he communicates to others’ (Argyris & Schön, 1974, p. 7). In contrast, the theory
that actually governs someone’s actions in practice, is referred to as a ‘theory-in-use’. A
person’s theory-in-use ‘may or may not be compatible with his espoused theory’ and ‘the
individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories’ (Argyris &
Schön, 1974, p. 7). If an individual’s espoused theory matches their theory-in-use, then
they are said to be in congruence. This means their inner feelings are expressed in action,
and both internal and external states are integrated (Argyris & Schön, 1974). In contrast,
incongruence means that the theory-in-use does not match an individual’s espoused
theory. Another way to think of this, is that an espoused theory is the set of values on
which an individual believes their behaviour is based, whilst a theory-in-action is the
values implied by their behaviour. Argyris and Schön (1974, p. viii) wondered whether ‘the
difficulty in learning new theories of action was related to a disposition to protect the old
theories-in-use’.
Teacher control and dominance within instrumental learning has been previously
highlighted (Jorgensen, 1986; Persson, 1994, 1996; West & Rostvall, 2003). Coupled with
a strong sense of loyalty, a theme which emerged in my interviews (see Chapter 3,
section 3.3.3) and which has been cited in previous research (Jorgensen, 1986), private
teachers may seek to safeguard their theories-in-use. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 8
(sections 8.2.3 and 8.4 ), survey responses suggested a keenness to preserve an
heritage of Western Classical Music, something which Finney (2016) argues can be
packaged and easily passed on.
In order to protect existing theories-in-use, Argyris and Schön (1974) suggest that each
individual possesses governing variables, values which they wish to keep within what they
perceive to be an acceptable range, something I discuss in Chapter 7 (7.4.1) in relation to
my own study. Action strategies are used by the individual as means to keep those
101
governing variables within this acceptable range, and such strategies will have both
intended and unintended consequences. Through a series of case studies, Argyris and
Schön (1974) developed a model of practice (Model I) which sought to account for
theories-in-use. They suggest that the need to define and achieve goals, maximise
winning and minimise losing, minimise generating or expressing negative feelings, and the
need to be rational, were the predominant governing variables. They suggest that an
action strategy such as controlling and retaining control of the agenda is considered
winning. In a similar way to Freire’s concept of false generosity, Argyris and Schön (1974)
argue that with such governing variables, individuals are prone, as part of their action
strategy, to withhold their true intentions. At the heart of this model, Argyris and Schön
(1974, p. 15) suggest that theories-in-use become a ‘means for getting what we want’, a
concept which resonates with the ides of Freire and Foucault discussed in Chapter 4
(sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3) above, and something which I discuss further in Chapter 8
(section 8.4) in relation to my research study.
Argyris and Schön (1974) proposed a second model of practice (Model II) in which, similar
to the mentor-friend model discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.3.6), rather than being the
opposite of Model I, placed emphasis on cooperation and collaboration. They saw this
model as being effective, for ‘as individuals feel higher degrees of freedom of choice,
trust, and authenticity, they are more likely to test their assumptions publicly’ (1974, pp.
91–92). They suggest (1974, p. 97) that in order for an effective transition to be made
from Model I to Model II, there needs to be ‘little inconsistency within the espoused theory,
within the theory-in-use, or between the espoused theory and the theory-in-use’.
4.6 Summary
In consideration of my research questions and in response to both phases of my study, I
have discussed a range of literature related not just to instrumental teaching, but also to
wider notions of learning and knowledge within education. Literature in relation to
instrumental teaching (see Chapter 4, section 4.2), whilst not necessarily directly
concerning the private teaching context, identifies a number of areas of interest related to
my study, in particular, notions of teacher dominance and control. Previous studies related
to instrumental teaching focus predominantly on one-to-one tuition in higher education,
and whilst not without relevance, further underline the lack of research specifically related
to the autonomous nature of private teaching. Overall, studies reinforce the varied nature
of a private teacher’s work, often as part of a portfolio career, something which can result
in a high degree of adaptability and flexibility.
102
Whilst the way in which learning occurs is something much contested and debated, I have
discussed a range of literature in relation to learning theory (see Chapter 4, section 4.3),
and in particular, the way this links to instrumental teaching and music education more
widely. A common thread which runs through the literature reviewed in this chapter is the
changing and emerging role of the teacher, something which is highly important in a one-
to-one teaching context. Behaviourist theories of learning are often cited as relying heavily
on demonstratable behaviour, something which can result in teacher dominance. In
contrast, constructivist theories of learning emphasise the role of the teacher in facilitating
situations in which learners can construct their own knowledge. Closely linked to
constructivism, Bruner’s concept of spiral learning has previously been applied to music
education; however, like Piaget’s notion of a staged development, it is problematic when
considered in terms of instrumental learning which has no agreed benchmarks. In other
words, it is hard to know what knowledge students might be expected to construct in such
situations and how this could be measured.
Social constructivist theories such as those of Vygotsky highlight the way in which
learning can be affected by social interaction. Indeed, the acquisition of skills and
knowledge with the assistance of a more knowledgeable ‘other’ has previously been
linked to instrumental learning. That said, it is also necessary to acknowledge that this
requires identity shifts which could be affected by the competing cultures of both teacher
and student. This is of particular interest in a one-to-one teaching scenario where studies
suggest the master-apprentice model still prevails.
Closely linked to such theories, Lave and Wenger’s notions of socially situated learning
highlight the role of apprenticeships, where learning is supported by participation in an
activity alongside others. These theories, in part, led to the development of the idea of a
community of practice where learning takes place through a process of participation and
negotiation, and where no one person, for example, the teacher, dominates. The latter is
of particular relevance in connection to an emerging understanding of community music
and informal learning, and sits in contrast to the previously-cited dominance of teachers in
one-to-one instrumental lessons.
Following the emerging theme of teacher dominance and control, I have discussed and
reviewed (see Chapter 4, section 4.5) in particular the work of Bernstein, Freire and
Foucault, and alongside the work of Argyris and Schön, they offer insights into the
potential factors which might influence such teacher behaviour. Bernstein suggested that
in order to offer greater choice, teachers would have to relinquish a degree of control.
Foucault argued that knowledge could lead to power and as a result, institutions may seek
to govern participants in a way which makes them obedient to an accepted system. Freire
103
was concerned that if students were merely receptacles for knowledge, this could lead to
teacher dominance, and as found by Argyris and Schön, teachers may employ a range of
methods by which they can retain control and govern their ‘subjects’.
A wider discussion of the philosophy of knowledge within music education (see Chapter 4,
section 4.4) raises a number of questions regarding the value of music as both an
aesthetic experience and social practice. Coupled with that discussed above, the literature
reviewed reinforces the complex and interconnected nature of instrumental teaching as
part of a wider network of communities, institutions and influence. Overall, the literature
reviewed suggests a disconnect between the wider practices of education, and those of
instrumental teachers. The dominance of the master-apprentice model of teaching, which,
in itself, proliferates a self-perpetuating, strongly loyalty-based ‘system’, seems only to
widen such a gap. In Chapter 5, I will explore further the specific roles which private
teachers undertake, before considering in greater detail, aspects of control and choice in
private instrumental teaching in Chapters 6 and 7.
104
5. Who are ‘private music teachers’ and what does their role
include?
5.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to uncover more about the role which private music teachers
play in the music education landscape. Through the 486 survey responses I received, I
present a ‘snapshot’ of the profession in 2017, before considering in greater detail the way
in which these teachers view their role and identity. I believe that by better understanding
the interactions and underlying assumptions which occur in the course of private music
lessons, all are better placed to probe more deeply into some of the finer details of the
profession. The original survey, as was made available online, is given in Appendix E.
5.2 General statistics
One of the original aims of the research, and something which came out of phrase one,
was the sense that we, both as a community of teachers and as researchers, needed to
know more about who private teachers actually were, and how they view the work they
do. Part of the main survey was designed to gather a range of data which sought to shed
further light on a profession which has previously been seen as hard to access and hidden
from view. I begin by considering questions related to the number of pupils taught, their
age, and the additional work undertaken private teachers.
105
5.2.1 Number of pupils taught
Table 4: How many private pupils do you currently teach? (n=485)
Number of private pupils
taught
Number of teachers
teaching that number of
private pupils
1-9
153
31.5%
10-19
119
24.5%
20-29
92
19.0%
30-39
63
13.0%
40-49
29
6.0%
50-59
14
2.9%
60-69
8
1.7%
70-79
3
0.6%
80-89
2
0.4%
90+
2
0.4%
Mean average number of pupils taught: 20
5.2.2 Age of pupils taught
Table 5: What is the age of the youngest pupil you currently teach? (n=484)
Age of the youngest pupil
taught (years)
Number of teachers for
whom this is the youngest
pupil taught
9 and below
371
76.7%
10-19
91
18.8%
20-29
9
1.9%
30-39
6
1.2%
40-49
2
0.4%
50-59
2
0.4%
60-69
2
0.4%
70+
1
0.2%
Mean average age of the youngest pupil taught: 9 and below
106
Table 6: What is the age of the oldest pupil you currently teach? (n=478)
Age of the oldest pupil
taught (years)
Number of teachers for
whom this is the oldest
pupil taught
9 and below
9
1.9%
10-19
120
25.1%
20-29
16
3.4%
30-39
22
4.6%
40-49
40
8.4%
50-59
57
11.9%
60-69
107
22.3%
70-79
73
15.3%
80-89
30
6.3%
90+
4
0.8%
Mean average age of the oldest pupil taught: 48
5.2.3 Additional work undertaken
Overall, 86.3% of private teachers undertook additional paid work alongside private
teaching of which peripatetic teaching was the most popular. These types of additional
paid work are summarised in Table 7 below:
Table 7: Do you do any other paid work alongside your private teaching? (n=483)
Other paid work undertaken
alongside private teaching
Number of teachers doing
that paid work alongside
private teaching
Accompanying
122
25.3%
Composing
46
9.5%
Performing
206
42.7%
Peripatetic teaching
219
45.3%
Other music-related work
195
40.4%
Other non-music-related
work
106
22.0%
None – private teaching is
the only source of income
66
13.7%
107
5.2.4 Nature of additional work undertaken
Sixty-seven (67) different occupations were listed here, of which the top ten are shown in
Table 8:
Table 8: If you have selected ‘Other music-related work’ or ‘Other non-music-related
work’, briefly describe what this is (n=275)
Other paid work undertaken
alongside private teaching
Number of teachers doing
that paid work alongside
private teaching
Classroom teaching
33
12.0%
Administration
32
12.4%
Choral conducting
31
11.3%
Teaching in higher
education
23
8.4%
Early years music teaching
18
6.6%
Workshop leading
15
5.6%
Conducting
12
4.4%
Music examining
11
4.0%
Proof reading
11
4.0%
Audio-visual recording and
production
10
3.6%
Of the remaining work areas identified, a number of these were related to music; for
example, training for music educators, music publishing, instrument repair, music
promotion and music retail. A wide range of non-music-related work areas was identified,
and these were as diverse as to include roles such as seamstress, osteopath, matched
betting, local councillor, gardener, delivery driver, comedian, childminding and running a
bed and breakfast.
A number of observations can be made from these statistics, but overall, they
demonstrate what a wide and diverse range of teaching is undertaken, in addition to other
work. From an economic point of view, it is possible to see why, with an average of only
20 private pupils, over 80% of teachers undertake additional paid work alongside their
teaching. This also ties in with the notion of the portfolio career. Also notable is the wide
range of ages being taught, right from the age of three, to those not far short of 100-years-
old. This, once again, highlights the need for private teachers to be adaptable as they
react to a wide range of different learners.
108
It is also appropriate here to consider the overall demographics of those who completed
the survey itself.
5.2.5 Gender of survey respondents
Table 9: Gender of survey respondents (n=477)
Gender
Number of private teachers
of that gender completing
the survey
Female
395
82.9%
Male
82
17.1%
5.2.6 Age of survey respondents
Table 10: Age of survey respondents (n=479)
Age group
Number of private teachers
in that age group
completing the survey
Under 18
1
0.2%
18-24
25
5.2%
25-34
105
21.9%
35-44
111
23.2%
45-54
131
27.3%
55-54
92
19.2%
65-74
12
2.6%
75-84
1
0.2%
85+
1
0.2%
Clearly, it is a crude analysis, but taking the results of both the above, it might be deduced
that the ‘average’ private teacher who completed this survey is a female aged between 45
and 54.
109
5.2.8 Location of survey respondents
Table 11: Location of survey respondents (n=481)
Country in which private
teaching is based
Number of private teachers
in that country completing
the survey
United Kingdom
396
82.5%
USA
21
4.4%
Australia
17
3.5%
Canada
16
3.3%
Republic of Ireland
6
1.3%
Germany
5
1.0%
Netherlands
3
0.6%
Denmark
2
0.4%
Spain
2
0.4%
Sweden
2
0.4%
Belgium
1
0.2%
Brazil
1
0.2%
Cyprus
1
0.2%
France
1
0.2%
India
1
0.2%
Indonesia
1
0.2%
Italy
1
0.2%
Norway
1
0.2%
Portugal
1
0.2%
Switzerland
1
0.2%
Turkey
1
0.2%
5.3 Role and identity
Overall, 19% (n=93) of responses mentioned one-to-one interaction in one form or
another. In general, this related to the teaching of their chosen instrument (or instruments)
on an individual basis. There were, however, a number of responses which qualified the
nature of this one-to-one interaction further.
19
P40 mentioned ‘dealing one-to-one with
19
All survey participants were given a number in NVivo and that number is prefaced by ‘P’
to refer to each participant. These numbers do not reflect any particular grouping of
responses. Unless clarification was required, extracts from the survey dataset are
presented in their original form.
110
students’, and from a linguistic sense, ‘dealing’ suggests a role which encompasses more
than teaching alone. Two participants mentioned one-to-one teaching in terms of time,
P224 saying lessons took place on a ‘regular basis’ whilst P126 talks of giving lessons
‘over a period of time’. Two responses mentioned one-to-one teaching in terms of its
setting, P42 saying that teaching took place specifically in a ‘one-to-one’ setting, and P45
saying it involved ‘sitting alone in a room with a student’.
P294 emphasised the nature of needing to ‘communicate on a one-to-one basis’, but
perhaps most importantly, P130 defined private teaching as consisting of a ‘significant
proportion of…just valuable human one-to-one interaction’. This point in particular links
back to Participant B’s response in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.3), who said ‘I think we’re
enormously lucky to be able to have that kind of regular contact with our students’.
Following on from responses relating specially to one-to-one teaching, three participants
mentioned the independent nature of the role of the private teacher. P4 talks of ‘teaching
independently’, whilst P76 said ‘I enjoy the independence’. Similarly, P184 highlighted
‘independence’ as a particular feature of private teaching.
The employment status and financial nature of teaching privately were mentioned by a
number of survey respondents, and this further highlights the independent and self-
regulative nature of the profession. 5% (n=25) of respondents talked of private teaching
taking place on a ‘self-employed’ basis, but a number of responses described especially
the financial arrangements made directly with pupils, parents and guardians being of
importance. In addition to teaching on a ‘fee-paying basis’ (P3), three respondents (P104,
P114 and P186) explicitly mentioned being paid directly without an intermediary.
Furthermore, P244 stated that ‘my time and expertise is paid for by the student’.
Further highlighting the independent nature of the role, three participants described
agreements being made directly with clients: P200 stated that in the case of private
teaching, ‘all income and administration [are] going through me’; P142 indicated that
teaching took place ‘via an agreement directly with parents/carer’; whilst P295 references
teaching as taking place under a ‘privately made arrangement’. These responses are
further summarised by P475 who states that in the case of private teaching, ‘you give
lessons in exchange for money with no other parties involved other than teacher and
student’. As with the data gathered in phase one, evidence suggests private teachers
were conscious of the business side of teaching, and by consequence, the finances of it.
This appears to be in slight opposition to previous research which has suggested teachers
were more concerned with sharing their skills and knowledge than with any financial
reward (Jones & Parkes, 2010).
111
Two conflicting views were presented on the financial solvency of self-employment, P156
indicating that as a private teacher, they were ‘earning a precarious income’, whilst P178
stated that by teaching on this basis they ‘[earn] well’. Finally, of particular note is this
response from P45 who indicated that by teaching on a self-employed basis, they were
required to provide ‘value to them [the students]’. As well as the self-employed status of
private teachers highlighted here, responses suggest the independent nature of the role is
once again at the fore. Whilst private teaching can offer both positive and negative
outcomes in terms of earning potential, there is a sense that with self-employment comes
not only independence, but also responsibility.
As an extension of the above, it is also important to note that whilst great emphasis has
been placed on teaching independently on a one-to-one basis, private teaching can also
encompass groups. 3% (n=15) of participants described teaching ‘small groups’, but also
‘groups’ in general, and more explicitly, P354 mentioning teaching ‘pairs’ of pupils. It is
worth noting that much of the above related to independent teaching can also apply to
teaching groups on a private basis (e.g. agreements made directly with clients), and
indeed, there has been an upsurge in recent years in the potential for group teaching,
whether that be some form of crossover lessons, or ‘buddy lessons’ (Cantan, 2018b) or a
complete transition from individual to group teaching (Topham, 2018). It is necessary to
be cautious though, as previous studies have not been wholly in favour of group teaching
(Wöllner & Ginsborg, 2011).
As a result of the thematic coding of survey data discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6), I
will now examine in more detail how private teachers defined, described and perceived
their role and job. Data here relate to survey question seven: ‘if someone asked you what
being a private teacher involved, what would you say?’ Following coding, four overall
themes emerged, each of which included a range of individual codes. These are given in
Table 12, and each is discussed below:
112
Themes
Codes
5.4 Attributes required
for being a private
teacher
5.4.1 Awareness of pupils’ individual needs
5.4.2 An ability to set boundaries and expectations
5.4.3 Control over what’s taught
5.4.4 Commitment, dedication, reliability, purpose,
respect and generosity
5.4.5 An ability to organise and be organised
5.4.6 Self-motivation and commitment to reflection
5.4.7 Personality traits
5.4.8 Expertise, experience and skill
5.5 Purpose and aims
of being a private
teacher
5.5.1 Supporting and collaborating with other
professionals
5.5.2 Sharing the joy of music
5.5.3 Sharing your experience as a musician
5.5.4 The private teacher as mentor, facilitator and guide
5.5.5 Developing the skills required for independent and
lifelong learning
5.5.6 Enabling pupils to fulfil their ambitions, goals and
potential
5.5.7 Developing pupil-teacher relationships and
friendships
5.5.8 To inspire, encourage, nurture and care for pupils
5.5.9 To boost confidence, motivate, and build self-
esteem in pupils
5.6 The business of
private teaching
5.6.1 Provision of a suitable learning environment
5.6.2 Marketing their business
5.6.3 Administration and financial considerations
5.6.4 Qualifications and continuing professional
development
5.6.5 Professional integrity and responsibility
5.7 Private teaching
activities
5.7.1 Planning and preparation
5.7.2 Making, buying and acquiring resources
5.7.3 Teaching and delivering lessons
5.7.4 Preparing pupils for exams
5.7.5 Preparing pupils for performances, auditions and
competitions
5.7.6 Giving feedback and making assessments
Table 12: Coding of phase two data related to the roles of private teachers.
113
5.4 Attributes required for being a private teacher
In this first section, I discuss those attributes which respondents to the survey felt were
necessary to possess as a private teacher. In some cases, these attributes were referred
to in terms of the ability of teachers to undertake a particular role or task, and in others,
they referred to the personal attributes of the teacher themselves, perhaps what might be
defined as ‘teacher personality’.
5.4.1 Awareness of pupils’ individual needs
There was a strong response from private teachers with over a quarter of all respondents
referring to the need for teachers to be aware of the individual needs of pupils. Many of
those participants referred to the need to understand how pupils learn and to be aware of
their individual learning styles. P100 referred specifically to the three learning styles being
‘aurally, kinaesthetic and visually’, whilst P120 talked of the need for a holistic approach to
each pupil ‘dealing with body, mind and psychology of the student’. P165 took an even
wider view of learning, saying teachers need an ‘understanding [of] how the human body
works’. Reference was also made to the way in which individuals learn an instrument,
P158 saying teachers need ‘an understanding that learning a musical instrument is a
process, not a means to an end’. P302 provides a summary of their practice, saying
private teachers are ‘developing a variety of pedagogical approaches to meet different
learning styles and needs’.
As found by Mills and Smith (2003), six survey responses referred to the need for
teachers to be sensitive to the ability of pupils and to adapt their teaching accordingly. P38
refers to the need for teachers to have ‘sensitivity to their [the pupils’] boundaries’. Whilst
it is the case that sensitivity is an important consideration, it is also the case that through
student and teacher negotiation, boundaries, or even perceived boundaries, can be
challenged (Küpers et al., 2015). A number of participants talked of the need for teaching
and lessons to be taught in a way as to best suit the individual needs of each pupil. In
addition, P125 outlined the need to balance the needs not just of pupils, but of third
parties too, saying ‘I have to consider what the children want, what their parent wants,
how they feel, how much time they can spend’. Several respondents expressed the need
to be sensitive to the age of pupils. P343 refers to the physical limitations of pupils, saying
that some pupils will be ‘playing ‘with’ an instrument rather than on it’, implying that in the
earliest stages, pupils encounter a degree of experimentation with sound, rather than
playing in the traditional sense of the word. The culture of individual pupils was also
mentioned, P383 highlighting that ‘it’s about helping them find their own way but still
function within cultures and traditions’.
114
As found by Wöllner and Ginsborg (2011), several respondents highlighted the fact that
they, as teachers, were able to afford pupils individual attention in the course of their
private lessons. Interestingly, P170 refers to the perceived benefits of private tuition in this
respect, saying that lessons need to be a ‘suitable pace for the individual child…it has to
suit the individual. Otherwise it may as well be a class’. P305 summarises many of the
responses, saying ‘for me, it is about offering a personal service that meets the needs and
wishes of the student’.
Responses suggest that private teachers see the ability to offer a bespoke service as
important, so it is also interesting to consider the benefits of this awareness and
adaptability which they mention. P42 asserts that through this ability to adapt and tailor
lessons accordingly, ‘student's learning needs are addressed in such a way as to ensure
optimal learning and success’. P254 highlights the ability to specialise, saying that lessons
can be ‘geared towards student specialism’, and P491 refers to the satisfaction that this
tailoring of lessons can offer, saying that ‘being able to tailor bespoke lessons for each
student…is very satisfying for both parties’.
In the main, responses highlighted the idea of being adaptable in terms of the lessons
themselves. P42 suggests that private teaching involves ‘adapting lessons as necessary
so that the student can learn in the manner that best suits him/her’, and similarly, as
highlighted by P93, an ability to change and adapt lessons and ideas ‘to ensure your
student understands’. Likewise, P99 writes that private teaching involves ‘being prepared
to adjust your plan depending on speed of progress and lots of other factors’. Also
highlighted was the need for private teachers to have the attribute of being quick thinkers,
with the ability to react in the moment. P212 writes that private teaching involves an ‘ability
to think quickly and adapt’ whilst P411 writes of the need for an ‘ability to react and
change on the spot’. Above all, there was recognition that as private teachers, it was
necessary to ‘sometimes deviate from the norm’ (P266), whatever the ‘norm’ might be.
Closely related to the need for private teachers to adapt to the individual needs of each
pupil, was a need for flexibility. In general, there was a sense that private teachers needed
to possess ‘an ability to be flexible’ as suggested by P341. Similarly, P412 writes that
private teaching involves ‘being very flexible’, whilst P433 says ‘great flexibility’ is needed.
P17 suggests that private teachers need to ‘be open to a lot of flexibility about how the
learning might progress’. This might include, as suggested by P72, the need for ‘flexible
ideas’, or as highlighted by P172, a ‘willingness to be flexible to tackle things in new
ways’. The range of potential pupils is also highlighted, P155 saying that private teaching
involves an ability to ‘flex quickly, from teaching a young child to a teenager to an adult’.
This in particular was highlighted in the statistics related to age of pupils outlined in
115
Chapter 5 (section 5.2), where data indicate pupils ranging in age from three to 95 were
being taught. In more practical terms, the need to be flexible in working hours was also
highlighted, for example P349 saying that private teachers need an ‘ability to have a
flexible schedule (work evenings and weekends)’.
In addition to the suggestion that an ability to be adaptable and flexible were important
attributes of being a private teacher, P17 suggests that private teachers, ‘need to be
open-minded’, with both P44 and P99 highlighting similar attributes. P44 also suggests
that private teaching involves ‘thinking outside the box’. In contrast, it was also recognised
by P6 that ‘being “private” and solitary can contribute to staleness’.
Responses point to an overriding sense that good communication skills were an essential
part of being a private teacher, with 14% (n=69) of respondents highlighting this. This also
extended to the need to be good listeners. It was accepted that part of the role involved
dealing with a wide variety of people: for example, P287 says that private teaching
requires them to ‘GET ALONG WELL WITH SO MANY, WIDELY DIVERSE STUDENTS
[respondent’s capitalisation]’, and this is summed up by P256 who says private teachers
need to know ‘how to communicate well with a wide variety of ages, stages and
personalities’. The need for teachers to get along with students and parents was widely
mentioned, P457 saying there is a need to work ‘in partnership with student and parents’.
P470 says that as a private teacher, they needed to build ‘a rapport with the pupils and
their parents’, with both P144 and P359 saying that teachers need to be ‘approachable’.
In relation to the need for communication skills, especially with parents, P80, P122 and
P203 mention the need for ‘diplomacy’; P358 the need for ‘resilience’; P164 and P411 the
need for assertiveness; and P453 the need for ‘tact’.
5.4.2 An ability to set boundaries and expectations
Responses implied that in addition to flexibility, private teachers also needed to set
boundaries. P84 talks of the need for ‘clear boundaries’ and P341 the need for ‘good
boundaries’ whilst P230 writes of the need for the ‘ability to establish clear expectations
both for students (learning expectation) and families’. P230 talks of family expectation in
terms of matters related to scheduling, rearranging lessons etc.; the sense of instilling
boundaries in relation to these is picked up by P263 who writes that teachers need to
decide ‘how flexible you are prepared to be with regard to rearranging lessons to suit the
pupils’ requirements’.
Two respondents explicitly mentioned the need to maintain ‘ethical boundaries’ (P309);
P319 states that teachers need an ‘awareness that we’re not therapists, but sometimes
116
need to act as if we were, and must avoid overstepping the boundaries or messing with
people’s minds’. That said, as I shall discuss further in Chapter 5 (section 5.5.8) below,
survey responses suggest private teachers were aware of their role as, amongst other
things, life coaches and counsellors. Finally, although not explicitly mentioning
boundaries, P268 says that one of the features of being a private teacher is ‘trying to
make the lessons fun and engaging whilst achieving targets’. This theme raises an
interesting question regarding teacher control and boundaries, and I shall to this in later
chapters.
5.4.3 Control over what is taught
Related to the need for private teachers to set boundaries is the degree of and ability to
control what is taught in lessons. Whilst responses mainly centred around teacher control,
pupil freedom and choice were also mentioned. For example, P71 writes that when
teaching privately, students can ‘enjoy the freedom to follow their interests as they make
progress’, though they go on to say ‘I am in control of what gets taught, when, and how’.
Equally, P201 simply says ‘you’re [the teacher is] in control’. This suggests that whilst
pupils may enjoy a degree of freedom, as highlighted in previous studies (Burwell, 2016a;
Gaunt, 2008; McPhail, 2013; Persson, 1994; West & Rostvall, 2003), the teacher
dominates.
There is also a sense that as found by Lehmann et al. (2007) in relation to one-to-one
teaching, the autonomy of private teaching offers teachers a greater degree of freedom.
P109 states that as a private teacher, ‘I have the freedom to teach in a way that is the
summation of my life time's experience as a teacher’. P306 suggests that this freedom
leads to consistency in approach, saying ‘which for me is that classical vocal training is
the basis and comes before pupils broaden to popular music. Some pupils need me to
ease up on that, but I usually bring them round in the end’. This is a theme which also
emerged in phase one (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.1) whereby Participant A indicated their
approach to teaching singing was rooted in classical music, and the technique learnt
through that could be utilised with additional genres in the future.
Responses suggest the lack of an overarching institutional framework allows private
teachers greater autonomy. P188 defines private teaching as ‘teaching without the
involvement / infrastructure of a third party (school, institution, etc.)’ and equally, P206
reinforces this, saying that private pupils are undertaking ‘tuition outside of any other
establishment i.e. Out of school/ college/ music centre’. P92 highlights the benefits of such
freedom, saying there are ‘possibilities to explore wider areas than in formal music
117
education controlled by curricula’. Similarly, P219 says ‘I can select syllabuses and
methodologies and not be pressured by government or school policies’.
The element of freedom identified above, was also highlighted by three participants in
terms of pupils choosing to have lessons, and teachers having control over who they
taught. P3 states that one of the features of private teaching is teaching pupils who ‘opt in
voluntarily’. Again, this relates to one of the interview responses in Chapter 3 (section
3.2.5). Related to this is the sense that pupils who ‘opt in’ are likely to be more interested,
P356 saying that private teachers teach pupils ‘who actually want to learn rather than
being faced with an uninterested school class’. In turn, this highlights the potential
motivational differences, P392 saying that private teachers are afforded ‘peaceful lessons
with motivated students who are generally fully toilet trained’. This implies students
learning music in a classroom setting are perceived to be uninterested, whereas in a one-
to-one lesson, they are fully motivated to learn.
If one of the attributes of being a private teacher is the ability and freedom to adapt their
teaching to meet the needs of individual learners, then it may also be the case that
another attribute is a teacher’s ability to manage that freedom of choice, and as a
necessary extension of that, their control. Whilst teachers persistently highlighted in their
responses their ability to tailor private lessons to the needs of individual pupils, they also
highlighted the need to set boundaries, and in some cases, to be ‘in control’. This is
suggestive of an emerging dichotomy between the freedom which private teaching affords
teachers, and the way in which they manage this.
5.4.4 Commitment, dedication, reliability, purpose, respect and generosity
Whilst I have considered some of the practical attributes needed by private teachers, a
range of further attributes were highlighted as being beneficial to their personalities. The
largest of these mentioned by 7% (n=35) of respondents was the idea of commitment,
both to their teaching, and to their pupils. P300 highlighted the fact that private teaching
needs a ‘long-term commitment’, whilst P433 suggests that being a private teacher
involves ‘a commitment of time’. P192 highlights the role teachers play in pupils’ lives,
saying ‘commitment and [dedication] in the lives of children are really what gets you in this
kind of job’. The idea of dedication was mentioned elsewhere too, in particular, P427
saying that as a private teacher, they are providing a ‘dedicated education to a student
who requires a more independent learning environment’.
The idea of commitment and dedication was portrayed in other ways too, for example,
P249 says that as a private teacher, ‘you must be fully present with each student’.
118
Similarly, P306 writes that private teaching involves ‘high levels of focus’, and likewise,
P314 suggests that private teachers need to be ‘highly concentrated’. P329 says that
private teaching requires ‘100% involvement’, and similarly, P334 writes that private
teaching requires teachers to be ‘totally devoted’. The idea of involvement and dedication
is perhaps summarised most effectively by P331 who says that private teaching involves
‘spending half an hour a week giving your sole attention to the pupil to move them forward
in [their] music education and direct them in [their] practice’.
Linked to the above is a sense that private teachers need to be reliable. Indeed, P287
writes that as a private teacher, it is ‘IMPORTANT TO BE RELIABLE [respondent’s
capitalisation]’. Also linked to the idea of reliability, is the need to be ‘conscientious’ (P195)
and have ‘determination’ (P204). In addition to the above, and closely related to the idea
of devotion, P213 suggests that being a private teacher requires ‘generosity of spirit’,
whilst P266 says private teaching involves ‘being prepared to go beyond the call of duty’.
P341 indicates that above all, private teachers should have ‘deep respect’ for their pupils.
5.4.5 An ability to organise and be organised
As previously highlighted by Liebman (2005), the need for organisational skills was
mentioned by over a quarter of respondents. P237 says that private teaching involves
‘being well-organised’ whilst P253, P266 and P363 all say that it involves ‘being very
organised’. P272 says that it involves ‘extreme organization skills’ whilst P310 says ‘I feel I
have [to] be super organised’. P411 suggests that private teachers need ‘highly effective
organisation abilities’, and P416 says ‘strong organizing skills’ are needed. Organisation
was referred to specifically in terms of running a business, P273 saying private teaching
requires ‘good organisation skills that comes along with running a business’ and P474
saying an ‘organised business-head’ is needed. Organisation was mentioned especially in
terms of scheduling and timetabling. P325 says that private teachers ‘have to be able to
organise their schedule’ whilst P437 says they need to be ‘very well organized in terms of
scheduling’.
As also highlighted by Liebman (2005), closely related to the need for organisation, is that
of time management, something mentioned by 12% (n=59) of respondents. Primarily, this
was referred to in relation to scheduling. P39 says that private teachers have to ‘arrange
lesson times’ whilst P410 says that private teaching involves ‘setting aside time for
teaching’. Responsibility for their own scheduling was identified, P219 saying ‘I work to my
timetables, timescales and strategies’, whilst P231 says that private teaching involves
‘being in charge of my own timetable’. P373 suggests that private teaching requires ‘good
time management’, with P411 saying ‘excellent planning and time management’ is
119
needed. Time management was also mentioned in terms of the lessons themselves. P234
suggests that private teaching involves being ‘an excellent time keeper’ whilst P479 writes
‘you have to plan your time well, be vigilant that you are not going overtime during
lessons’. P444 suggests that private teaching involves a ‘hectic schedule’, and as
identified by P312, ‘punctuality’ is needed.
As an extension of the need for good organisational and time management skills, the
notion of private teaching involving ‘hard work’ was highlighted in 6% (n=30) of the
responses, P52 saying ‘a lot of hard work’ was required. P315 suggests that ‘being a
private teacher involves working hard’ whilst P252 writes it involves ‘hard grind’. That said,
responses suggest hard work is not automatically a negative, P381 saying that being a
private teacher involves ‘a lot of hard but rewarding work’. Alongside ‘hard work’, the need
for ‘energy’ was also highlighted, something previously indicated by Liebman (2005).
P193 says private teachers need ‘positive energy – even on the days you feel bad’.
Responses point towards an acceptance that the hours associated with private teaching
were not always convenient in terms of a wider work-life balance. P22 says that private
teachers need a ‘willingness to work at all hours’, whilst P269 suggests that private
teachers are ‘working the hours many people are winding down’. Similarly, P259
highlights the fact that private teachers are often ‘working long hours’, and likewise, P296
talks of private teachers ‘working long antisocial hours’. Again, P288 refers to private
teachers working ‘anti social hours and long days’, whilst P280 says ‘it’s also a lot more
work than just the 30-60 minutes your student is in front of you’. As a possible
consequence of the above, a number of teachers have referred to the tiredness
experienced. P214 says that private teaching involves possessing a ‘willingness to get
tired!’, whilst P288 highlights the fact it can be ‘very tiring’. As suggested by P94, ‘it is an
intense job’, and similarly, P238 says it ‘can be mentally very tiring’.
Related to the one-to-one nature of the job, and to its hours, five participants mentioned
the problems associated with isolation and loneliness. P94 states that private teaching
can be a ‘lonely job unless you go out of your way to meet other teachers’. P144
highlights the working hours as a potential reason for such loneliness, saying ‘it is often
anti [social], working after school hours’ and indeed, goes on to say ‘this is why I prefer to
base my teaching in schools as much as possible’. Evidence in the dataset suggests
isolation and loneliness may go hand-in-hand, P312 stating that private teaching
inevitably includes ‘some isolation’, and P201 saying that if you only teach privately, you
‘accept that you may feel isolated’.
120
5.4.6 Self-motivation and commitment to reflection
According to P161, ‘a successful private teacher has to be very self-motivated’, something
also highlighted by P365 and P469. Closely related to the idea of self-motivation is the
need for self-discipline, P238 writing private teaching involves ‘much self discipline’, whilst
similarly, P312 says ‘discipline (of self!)’ is needed. P411 summarises these, saying that
being a private teacher involves the ‘ability to work both logically, analytically but above all
creatively at the same time’.
Seven participants highlighted the need for teachers to be reflective in their work. P115
writes that private teaching involves ‘reflection and self-criticism’, and P266 says that as a
private teacher, you ‘need to reflect on your own teaching’. Similarly, P358 highlights the
need for private teachers to have ‘insight and the ability to reflect and consider [one’s] own
teaching skills and identify our strengths and weaknesses’, and as suggested by P302,
this ‘continual reflection’ is required in order ‘to improve practice’. There was also the
suggestion from P302 that this kind of ongoing reflection contributes to personal growth,
saying that it allows teachers, to gain ‘new grounds mentally and physically’.
5.4.7 Personality traits
It is appropriate to highlight some of the words used by survey respondents to describe
what might be termed the ‘personality traits’ required by a private teacher. The need for
empathy with students, was mentioned by eight respondents, for example P375 says
private teaching requires an ‘empathetic disposition’. Similarly, ‘understanding’ was
mentioned, and also highlighted was the need for ‘compassion’, ‘kindness’ and ‘humility’.
Seven respondents to the survey highlighted the need for private teachers to possess a
sense of humour. P147 writes that being a private teacher involves ‘having a sense of
humour’, whilst P237 says it involves ‘maintaining a sense of humour’. Indeed, P329 says
the role of the private teacher involves the ability to ‘always find the persons sense of
humour’.
Closely linked to the need for a sense of humour, 11 responses highlighted the notion of
‘having fun’, something which was mentioned both in terms of teacher- and pupil-
satisfaction. P259 suggests that private teaching involves ‘having fun with people’, whilst
P342 says it involves ‘having fun with music’. Both P89 and P99 say that private teaching
involves ‘lots of fun’, whilst P45 says private teaching involves ‘just having a nice time’.
There was also a sense, as suggested by P98, that private teachers are involved in
‘making music fun’, and similarly, P150 says that teaching needs to be ‘entertaining’.
121
There were 60 references to the attribute of patience in the dataset, and these responses
suggest it is clearly something many teachers feel is an important requirement of being a
private teacher. A number of responses highlighted the amount of patience needed, for
example, P9 writes that private teaching involves having ‘a lot of patience’. Indeed, P213
writes of the need for private teachers to have ‘immense tolerance’, whilst P245 highlights
the need for ‘endless patience’, and P309 the need for ‘infinite patience’. P375 suggests
that private teaching involves having ‘unlimited patience’ whilst P435 writes of the need for
a ‘high degree of patience’. P411 writes that overall, as private teachers ‘boundless
tenacity and patience are a must!’ The notion of patience was also highlighted in terms of
its relationship to individuals. P55 says that private teaching involves ‘being patient
enough to deal with small children, grown adults and everyone in between’. Similarly, P86
highlights the need for ‘patience (for all ages)’ and P172 the need for ‘patience with both
students and parents’.
Linked to the notion of adaptability and flexibility, are the responses which highlight the
need for teachers to be creative and imaginative, something mentioned by 12
respondents to the survey. For example, P358 suggests that private teachers need a
‘creative ability’, whilst P213 indicates a private teacher needs to be ‘imaginative’ and
‘creative’. P309 highlights a link between creativity and the ability to respond to the
individual needs of pupils, saying that private teaching involves ‘endless creativity in how
to teach the same ideas many different ways’.
Four percent (4%, n=20) of respondents highlighted the notion that private teaching
required ‘enthusiasm’. In some cases, this referred to the amount of enthusiasm required,
P22 saying that being a private teacher involves ‘a lot of enthusiasm’, and P269 saying
that it involves ‘maintaining high levels of enthusiasm’. The idea of ‘enthusiasm’ was also
mentioned in specific terms, for example, P148 suggests that private teaching involves
‘being enthusiastic towards any attempt at music making’, whilst P300 says it involves
‘keeping enthusiastic about all types of repertoire’.
The ‘love of music’ was mentioned by eight respondents. P29 says that as a private
teacher, ‘you’ve got to love music’, but equally P460 highlights the limitations, saying that
private teachers need ‘skills for teaching; Not just a love of music.’ Alongside this, was a
desire to encourage pupils themselves to acquire a love for music. P97 suggests that
teachers need to ‘nurture a love of playing an instrument’, whilst P103 says private
teaching involves ‘encouraging a love [of] music’. Similarly, P345 says that private
teaching involves ‘creating a love of music’, whilst P399 suggests it involves ‘teaching
students how to learn, and how to love music’.
122
Related to the notion of a ‘love of music’ is having a ‘passion for music’, highlighted
explicitly in 11 responses to the survey. In the main, this was mentioned in general terms,
with a number of respondents saying that private teaching involves ‘passion’. P439 says
that private teaching involves having ‘passion and interest for your subject’, and similarly,
P76 says ‘I’m passionate about sharing the skill with anybody who wants to play’.
Likewise, P129 says that private teaching involves ‘being passionate and vocational about
music teaching as a profession’.
5.4.8 Expertise, experience and skill
As found by Creech (2010), an ability to play the instrument being taught was also a
concern for the private teachers surveyed, this being referred to in 10% (n=49) of
responses; however, the degree to which that skill extends was variable. P158 suggests
that private teachers require ‘a high level of skill and clear understanding of [their] own
instrument’, whilst P273 indicates ‘a high level of competency on your instrument’.
Perhaps at the lower end of the spectrum, P312 indicates that private teachers require a
‘good knowledge of subject’, whilst in the case of P37, appeared an afterthought, as they
responded with ‘oh and playing the instrument’, possibly seeing this as something which
was a given.
Much in terms of the ability to play the instrument was related to the need to demonstrate
to pupils, something previously highlighted by Liebman (2005). Again, there was a good
degree of variation in answers here, with P310 saying that private teachers need to have
the ‘ability to demonstrate / model everything that is being asked of the student’, whilst
P172 says they need to ‘be willing to demonstrate regularly but not always’. There was
some suggestion that private teachers should have ‘good performance skills’ (P168) and
even be ‘a performer’ (P266), and as outlined by the statistics above (see Chapter 5,
section 5.2), 42.7% (n=210) of private teachers responding to the survey indicated they
also undertook paid performing engagements alongside private teaching. Evidence
suggests that experience is important for the private teacher, P437 saying ‘a strong
background in your instrument’ is required. Overall, whilst it was recognised that a love of
music and ability to enthuse and inspire pupils was important, technical ability on the
instrument, and a wider knowledge of musical concepts was also important.
In addition to the practical instrumental and vocal skills mentioned above, respondents
also cited a number of knowledge areas with which they felt that private teachers should
be familiar. The need for private teachers to be familiar with the repertoire of their
instrument was mentioned in six survey responses, and specifically, being familiar with ‘A
WIDE RANGE OF REPERTOIRE [respondent’s capitalisation]’ (P287). The requirement
123
for private teachers to possess historical knowledge was specifically mentioned in terms
of being able ‘to play stylishly’ (P40) in addition to awareness of the history of music. Also
mentioned was the need for theoretical knowledge (P40), musical knowledge (P5 and
P245), and subject knowledge (P159). This suggests that teachers may be aware of the
different types of knowledge encountered, and these echo Swanwick’s (1994) layers of
knowledge discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.4.1).
The area of knowledge mentioned most was that of technical knowledge, something
highlighted explicitly in 3% (n=15) of responses to the survey. This relates closely to the
practical instrumental and vocal skills mentioned above, as suggested by P271 who said
that private teachers need ‘expertise in specific instrumental technique’. Also mentioned
was the need for ‘technical know-how’ (P38), ‘clear technical understanding of own
instrument’ (P158) and ‘continual exploration of technique’ (P9). P45 wrote that private
teaching involved ‘serious technical discussion’.
5.5 Purpose and aims of being a private teacher
In this section I explore some of the outcomes identified by survey respondents as being
part of the purpose and aim of being a private teacher. These range from how teachers
see their role within the wider landscape of music education, to the ways in which they
interact with their own pupils on a one-to-one basis.
5.5.1 Supporting and collaborating with other professionals
Eleven responses highlighted the need for private teachers to collaborate with a range of
other professionals. P457 indicates that private teaching involves ‘working in partnership’,
P284 saying that this may include working with both ‘teachers and other professionals’. P6
highlights the benefits of collaboration, saying that private teaching involves ‘collaborating
with others in the profession - because together we're stronger’. Within these responses
teachers wrote specifically of the need for ‘meeting with other teachers’ (P13), P167
saying ‘it's important to mix with other musicians and teachers to exchange ideas’,
something previously highlighted by Aspin (2000). P341 highlights the need for private
teachers to be ‘connected to wider professional networks’.
Seven responses highlighted the importance of the private teacher supporting what is
taught in the school classroom. P37 suggested that private teachers should have ‘respect
for all the processes that are going on in the classroom and outside of it’. P149 indicated
that the things taught by private teachers should be linked to those being taught in school,
124
saying ‘creating a scheme of work that aids the pupils learning at school within the
curriculum’.
In addition to supporting the school music curriculum, responses indicated that private
teachers should work in a way which supports and prepares pupils for their school music
assessments. P69 highlights the need for ‘maintaining close links with students' school
music teachers in order to prepare students for assessment tasks’, and similarly, P149
highlights the need for private teachers to be ‘working with schools and music teachers to
help with any GCSE/ A Level/ Btech performance work’. P75 writes that private teaching
involves ‘teaching repertoire suitable for school music exams too’, and in addition to
school-based assessments, P71 assists with ‘Duke of Edinburgh assessments’. There is
however, the suggestion from P347 that this involvement is not universal, saying ‘I'm also
keen to liaise with students' class teachers if they are preparing for GCSE, but I get the
impression from them that I am in the minority here: I do think it's my responsibility!’
5.5.2 Sharing the joy of music
Six percent (6%, n=30) of respondents wrote of the role private teachers played in sharing
the joy, love and enjoyment of music and music-making. Responses indicate that music
was clearly important to private teachers, and that this should be transmitted to their
pupils. P486 demonstrates their own passion for music, saying private teaching involves
‘inspiring and engaging a music student into the wonderful world of music’. Similarly, P413
writes that for them, being a private teacher involves ‘imparting my love and knowledge of
music’.
Many of these responses highlighted private teachers’ desire to pass on their own
enjoyment of music. P162 and P236 suggest that private teachers are required to pass
‘on the love of music’, and P175 writes that private teaching involves ‘inspiring a love of
music in your pupils’. Similarly, P214 highlights the need ‘to communicate the love of
music to all my students’ whilst P276 responded saying that ‘fostering a love of music in
students through enabling them to play their instrument’ is an important role played by the
private teacher.
Evidence suggests that this ability to pass on the joy of music was seen as a privilege,
P238 saying it allows them ‘the [privilege] of introducing people, young and old, to the
magnificent world of music at so many levels’. There was a sense amongst many survey
responses that the enjoyment which teachers had gained from music should be available
to the next generation, P387 saying that private teaching involves ‘ideally helping a new
generation find pleasure in learning an instrument and developing a skill that will last them
125
for life’. Similarly, P337 says that as a teacher, they are ‘trying to see that music becomes
a friend for life for the pupils who pass through my hands’, and likewise, P355 says they
are ‘trying to stimulate and maintain an interest in and enthusiasm for music’.
In addition to sharing the enjoyment of music, P470 highlights the need to nurture pupils,
saying that private teaching involves ‘nurturing on a one to one basis the technical skills,
musicality, and hopefully enjoyment involved in playing an instrument’. Also highlighted is
the desire to help pupils, P441 saying private teaching involves ‘helping them to enjoy
playing the piano, improving their understanding of music, it's ongoing and fascinating’.
P258 talks of ‘fostering a love of music in students through enabling them to play their
instrument’ and P275 says that private teaching involves ‘instilling in them a love for and a
curiosity about music’.
Also identified were the benefits of music-making in the wider world, P417 saying that
private teachers are ‘using the power of music to inspire, excite, heal, and to develop
positive relationships and thus transform lives’. P334 suggests that private teachers need
to be ‘totally devoted to developing the love of music in the student’.
5.5.3 Sharing your experience as a musician
Whilst 6% (n=30) of respondents described the role private teachers played in sharing the
joy and enjoyment of music, by contrast, 4% (n=20) of teachers specifically described
sharing their own experience. Responses suggest that a teacher’s own skills are
something which should be passed on to their pupils, P86 saying that being a private
teacher involves ‘passing on my skills’. Similarly, P173 describes ‘passing on experience’
whilst P265 writes that private teaching involves ‘giving expertise’. P281 says that being a
private teacher involves ‘enthusiastically passing on musical knowledge and skills’ whilst
P231 highlights the need to be ‘passing on what I've learned - from my own teachers, and
also from my pupils’. P205 suggests that private teaching involves ‘passing on technique
and knowledge of the instrument and its traditions’. These responses align with those of
Participant C interviewed in phase one (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.9) who said that:
‘I was very, very fortunate in the models I had as my teachers, I’ve emulated,
certainly from [name removed], my singing teacher a lot of his attitude and
expectation. He always found more in people than they expected, and I have tried
to do that.’
This highlights that found by Gaunt (2008, p. 221) who writes that instrumental teachers
were ‘fulfilling a debt of gratitude for the knowledge and skills they had gained themselves
by ‘transmitting’ them to the next generation’. Similarly, Jorgensen (2015, p. 5) argues too,
126
that ‘music education is centrally concerned with transmitting and transforming a plethora
of musical traditions from one generation to the next’.
Although there was a sense amongst survey responses that experience and expertise
was something to be passed from private teachers to their own pupils, some mentioned
this in a ‘sharing’ sense. P355 says that private teaching involves ‘sharing knowledge and
expertise with the pupil(s)’, whilst P433 talks of ‘sharing in learning together’. P76 said that
as a private teacher, they are ‘passionate about sharing the skill with anybody who wants
to play’ and P98 talks of being a ‘guide to show pupils the journey into music’. There was
also the suggestion that private teaching allows teachers to share their experience without
external or institutional control; once again, I highlight P109 saying ‘I have the freedom to
teach in a way that is the summation of my life time's experience as a teacher’. I feel it is
important to make the differentiation here between ‘passing on’ and ‘sharing’ as both
could suggest differing levels of collaboration.
5.5.4 The private teacher as mentor, facilitator and guide
Although the primary focus has been on the notion of ‘teaching’ and being a ‘teacher’, a
number of responses highlighted other ways in which teachers interact with their pupils on
a one-to-one basis, and I feel it is important to highlight the language differences used
here. 10 responses mentioned the role of the private teacher being a ‘mentor’ to and
‘mentoring’ their pupils. P486 wrote that ‘a private teacher should be a mentor for the
student guiding him/her to a holistic music learning’. One teacher (P169) said that being a
private teacher involved being a ‘challenger’, whilst P97 saw their role being to ‘facilitate
the development of skills’, something also highlighted by Aspin (2000).
Eight responses highlighted the role of the teacher as a ‘guide’, ‘guiding’ their pupils. For
example, P47 writes that being a private teacher is ‘to guide pupils to understand music’,
whilst P281 says that as a private teacher ‘you are constantly guiding and educating
students not only as young musicians, but developing their overall qualities as human
beings as well.’ Similarly, P449 says that private teaching involves ‘guiding the student
through playing, without dictating what they should do’. This reflects what Creech and
Hallam (2010) refer to in terms of being a responsive leader. In light of previous research,
the idea of mentoring and guiding is interesting and could be suggestive of a teacher-pupil
relationship whereby they journey alongside one another, working towards common
outcomes, hallmarks identified as important within communities of practice (Wenger,
2008). This could suggest also, a sense that some teachers wish to move away, or have
moved away from the traditional master-apprentice model, to one which might be termed
to be one of mentor-friend (Lehmann et al., 2007).
127
Four participants referred to the role of the private teacher as a ‘coach’, ‘coaching’ their
pupils. P372 writes that being a private teacher involves ‘one to one specialist coaching’
whilst P395 says their role involves ‘coaching the student to develop specific practice
methods to foster the necessary technique for the instrument’. Nine teachers highlighted
the role of the teacher in ‘supporting’ their pupils. P19 responds saying that private
teaching involves ‘providing help and support’, whilst P24 highlights their role in
‘supporting the student’. There was also a sense that pupils’ musical development should
be supported, P223 saying a private teacher’s role is to ‘help [develop] the musician inside
who wants to play’ whilst P93 responds, saying the role of the private teacher involves
‘supporting their [the pupils’] development’.
5.5.5 Developing the skills required for independent and lifelong learning
It was recognised that as well as the work done with pupils in lessons, teachers also felt it
their responsibility to ensure pupils had the necessary skills to work outside of the lessons
and at home. 22 respondents referred to the need to facilitate the development of
independent learning skills. Firstly, responses centred on the need for teachers to teach
pupils how to practise. P37 says that private teaching involves ‘[teaching] how to
[practise]’, whilst P330 responded in a similar way, saying they help ‘students to learn the
techniques to practise to be able to play their instrument’. It was also recognised that
effective practice offers benefits to pupils, P434 saying that private teaching involves
‘teaching students how to practice, put in hard work and gain the benefits’. One response
(P346) went as far as to say that as a private teacher, ‘generally my lessons are on how to
practice more than anything else’.
In addition to teaching pupils how to practise, responses also highlighted the need for
pupils to ‘develop good practice habits’ (P12). P56 writes that private teaching involves
providing pupils with ‘practice strategies’, whilst P151 says it involves offering ‘practice
tips’. One response, P395, highlights the link between coaching and practice, saying
private teaching involves ‘coaching the student to develop specific practice methods to
foster the necessary technique for the instrument.’ There was also a link to the idea of
supporting pupils’ work outside of the lesson, P243 saying that the role of the private
teacher was to ‘support practice at home’.
Linked to the idea of practice outlined above, a number of respondents specifically
mentioned the need for pupils to develop the skills needed to learn independently outside
of the lesson, something highlighted by previous research (Colombo & Antonietti, 2017; P.
Evans & Bonneville-Roussy, 2015; Hallam, 2001). P11 suggests that private teachers
should be ‘giving individuals the tools to develop skills in and understanding of music’, and
128
similarly, P10 says teachers should be ‘giving people the opportunity to experience the
pleasure and satisfaction of being able to make music for themselves’. Likewise, P28 says
private teaching involves ‘teaching pupils the appropriate skills and attitudes to allow them
to develop to fulfil their musical potential and ambitions’.
Responses suggest that private teachers are conscious they are teaching a skill for life,
P24 saying private teaching involves ‘teaching a life skill’. P477 suggests that ‘a private
instrumental teacher must have an enthusiastic commitment to helping students become
the best musicians they can be and encourage life-long love of their instrument’ and
closely connected to that, P345 says that private teaching involves ‘preparing students for
the future’.
Also highlighted were means by which teachers could enable pupils to be independent
learners. For example, P470 says that private teaching involves ‘asking questions to elicit
the pupil's own self-teaching abilities’ and at another level, P399 says it involves ‘teaching
students how to learn’. P388 suggests that private teachers are ‘educating discipline in the
pupil’, whilst P175 says private teaching involves ‘imparting the techniques to acquire the
skills necessary to be an expressive musician on the instrument’. Other skills identified
which enable pupil independence include teaching ‘text interpretation, phrasing, form’
(P56); encouraging pupils to ‘research the pieces they are working on’ (P56); teaching
‘interpretation’ (P75 and P56); and also teaching the skills of ‘concentration and self-
discipline’ (P103). This suggests that teachers are aware that engagement with music on
different layers is desirable. As suggested by Swanwick (1994, p. 25), a progression from
propositional to direct knowledge, or knowledge by acquaintance, leads to the ‘deepest
levels of musical experience’.
Overall, responses suggest that private teachers are ‘giving them [the pupils] the tools to
one day do this on their own’ (P274) and ‘enabling a student to be able to play their
choice of music once lessons have stopped, whenever that may be’ (P266). P195
suggests that private teachers are involved in ‘addressing the needs of the student in
developing a love for and command of all aspects of music - it's sound, theory, history and
culture and the technique required to communicate said music’, P241 saying they are
responsible for ‘stimulating a life-long, life-enhancing love of music making’.
Survey responses suggest it was valuable for private teachers to reinforce the pleasure
and satisfaction associated with learning and playing an instrument. This is perhaps best
summed up by P10, who suggests that the role of the private teacher includes ‘giving
people the opportunity to experience the pleasure and satisfaction of being able to make
music for themselves’. In addition to lifelong learning, responses suggested that music
129
was there to be enjoyed in the present too, P258 saying that private teaching involves
‘fostering a love and enjoyment of music’. This resonates with Paynter and Aston (1970)
who emphasise knowledge as coming from the experience of living. Similarly, P262
highlights the role of the private teacher in possessing ‘a sincere love for sharing music
and helping others enjoy music’. There was also a sense, as highlighted by P34 that the
private teacher can also acquire satisfaction, saying that in their role, there is ‘great
satisfaction seeing people learn…setting work for them to stimulate, not frighten and make
fun!’
5.5.6 Enabling pupils to fulfil their ambitions, goals and potential
Although the responses here were few in number, the language used in participants’
responses is noteworthy. P19 suggests that private teachers are enabling their pupils to
‘perfect the art’ of playing, and similarly P431 indicates that private teaching involves
‘teaching them [the pupils] how to improve musical proficiency in their chosen instrument’.
In addition to the notion of perfection and proficiently, there was a sense from some
responses that pupils should be ‘successful’, P42 saying ‘student's learning needs are
addressed in such a way as to ensure optimal learning and success’. That said,
respondents also recognised that learning involves more than just success and
achievement, P45 stating that private teachers are ‘ideally seeing progression and
improvement in their [the pupils’] playing’. It is a limitation of this research that it is not
possible to know how private teachers define terms such as ‘success’ and the ‘art’ of
playing.
Responses indicated that the role of the private teacher included enabling pupils to fulfil
their ambitions and goals. Overall, there was a desire to meet the objectives of students
individually. P72 highlights the need for teaching to ‘suit their [the pupils’] objectives’,
whilst P68 suggests that the role of the private teacher involves ‘enabling the student to
get closer to achieving what they want from their singing’. P170 highlights the role of
private teachers in ‘working towards the individual's goals’, though in the case of P180,
there was a need to work ‘towards common goals’. ‘Common goals’ is suggestive of joint
enterprise, a hallmark of a community of practice (Wenger, 2008).
In terms of teaching itself, P28 suggested private teachers should be ‘teaching pupils the
appropriate skills and attitudes to allow them to develop to fulfil their musical potential and
ambitions’. P183 goes as far as to suggest that the role of a private teacher is to ‘make
sure that students achieve their goals (whether those are formal or informal.)’ P449
suggests that in order for pupils to reach their goals, private teaching involves ‘making
130
sure they have the technical knowledge’. P350 states ‘my private students are
professionals and their goals are very specific’.
In terms of potential, the general consensus amongst relevant responses was that private
teaching involves somehow unlocking the potential in pupils which already exists. P38
indicates that the role of the private teacher is to ‘help encourage them [the pupils] to
reach their potential’, whilst P45 suggests private teachers are ‘bringing out a person's
potential as a musician’. P51 suggests that private teachers can unlock potential by
‘building their capacity wherever possible’, whilst P474 writes that private teachers need to
‘enjoy engaging with pupils and stretching their abilities in a gentle way!’ Responses
suggest that, as highlighted by P329, private teaching involves encouraging pupils to ‘aim
for the best that they can achieve!’ These responses suggest an awareness that learning,
and development can occur in response to the environment and through social interaction,
both important features of constructivism and social constructivism.
Five responses referred to the private teacher’s role in developing pupils’ talent. P50
responds, saying that the role of the private teacher includes the ability to develop pupils’
‘musical talents’, whilst P268 says that private teaching involves ‘developing young
musicians.’ P466 highlights the role private teachers play in allowing pupils to grow,
saying it involves ‘nurturing many different levelled music students to enable them to
foster and grow in their talent and achieve mastery of their instrument through sequential
lessons’. Similarly, P141 writes of the need for private teachers to help pupils ‘improve
their talent to be the best they can be’. P467 stated that private teaching may involve
‘extra coaching of talented students that requested that’.
In phase one (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.5), Participant A spoke of their ability as a
private teacher, to avoid teaching anyone who, to them, appeared ‘talentless’; however,
as Holt (1991, p. 103) argues: ‘it is not our proper business as teachers, certainly not
music teachers, to make decisions and judgements about what people are or are not
“capable” of doing.’ The concept of talent is inherently problematic as indicated by the
conflicting responses here; however, survey responses suggest that private teachers may
see pre-existing talent as something which can be built upon.
5.5.7 Developing pupil-teacher relationships and friendships
Six percent (6%, n=28) of responses highlighted the need for and importance of the
development of an effective working relationship between pupil and teacher. P69 states
that private teaching involves ‘establishing [a] relationship with individual students’, P45
extending that to include ‘developing a relationship with someone over time’. P98 said that
131
as a private teacher, they were ‘relating personally to each pupil’, and P215 describes the
need for private teachers to build ‘a strong positive rapport with the students (and their
parents)’. The relationship with a pupil’s parents and its effect on the overall pupil-teacher
relationship is also highlighted by P219 who says, ‘the relationship with the students is
more personal and this may in part be due to the parental involvement’. P376 also
highlights the need for private teachers to build ‘a close relationship with the student and
their family’. At another level, P248 says that private teaching involves ‘getting to know
lots of lovely pupils’ with P287 saying that private teaching involves ‘an ability to truly get
along well with so many, widely diverse students’. In respect of developing the pupil-
teacher relationship, P411 says that private teachers need ‘good understanding of
psychology of both tutor student relationship, and student motivation’.
Responses suggest that teachers were aware of the need to take an interest in their
pupils, P67 saying that private teaching involved ‘taking an interest in them [the pupils]’.
P94 highlights the role a private teacher might play in the overall development of pupils,
extending beyond the lessons themselves, saying ‘you get to hear about your students
travel through life; often hearing things that are personal’. The idea of a private pupil
sharing personal information and experiences with their teacher is also taken up by P266
who says private teaching involves ‘being a great listener, not only to music but also
things that a student wishes to share, sometimes very personal’, going on to say they offer
‘a shoulder to cry on; and probably much more’. P355 goes as far as to say that for them,
private teaching involves ‘acting “in loco parentis” in pastoral matters’. Similarly, P347 also
highlights the emotional involvement which private teachers invest in their pupils, saying ‘I
find myself getting a lot more emotionally invested in my private students than the ones in
schools, so I guess being a private teacher involves a lot of personal relationship building
too’. P444 says that for them, private teaching involves ‘a lot of personal / intimate /
emotional feelings to share with little [pupils]’.
The pupil-teacher relationship was also mentioned in terms of its effect on the teaching
itself, P71 saying ‘we make decisions, together’. P400 suggests that a good pupil-teacher
relationship is important, so a ‘child feels safe to explore the instrument’. That said, P383
highlights the fact that private teaching involves more than just the teaching itself, saying
‘it's about more than just teaching music - it's social skills and personal development both
[intellectually] and emotionally’. Highlighting the importance of social interaction, P130
states that as a private teacher, a ‘significant proportion’ of the lesson time ‘is just valuable
human one-to-one interaction’.
Seven respondents mentioned friendships with pupils. P30 writes that being a private
teacher involves being a ‘friend’ to their pupils, whilst P29 says it involves ‘being friendly’.
132
The idea of friendship is summarised by P23 who says that ‘teaching is an all
encompassing profession...we are teachers, mentors, friends and all to our students’. In
relation to this, Mitra (cited in D. Evans, 2014) suggests a teacher is ‘not a guide, not an
expert, just a friend’. He goes on to say, ‘this is no longer the century where we can say “I
know best what you should do, just listen to me”. That time has gone’.
5.5.8 To inspire, encourage, nurture and care for pupils
P6 highlights an overarching theme, that private teaching should ‘POSITIVELY impact the
lives of others through music and learning about music [respondent’s capitalisation]’. 5%
(n=25) of responses highlighted the need for private teachers to ‘inspire’ pupils with P130
saying this included ‘inspiring musicality’. Similarly, both P121 and P342 suggested that
private teaching involves ‘inspiring creativity’. Some teachers also felt that it was their
responsibility, as highlighted by P120 to inspire the ‘next generation of musicians’.
Twelve (12) respondents mentioned the need to encourage pupils. In addition to a general
sense of ‘being encouraging’, some specific areas were identified, for example, P103
saying that private teaching involves ‘encouraging a love of music’. P252 highlights the
fact that private teaching involves ‘encouraging a wide range of abilities, ages and
interests’, whilst P289 suggests that private teaching requires ‘encouraging their [the
pupils’] love and knowledge of singing’.
Ten (10) responses explicitly highlighted the role of the private teacher in nurturing pupils.
P466 responds saying that private teaching involves ‘nurturing many different levelled
music students’, and similarly, P470 says it involves ‘nurturing on a one to one basis the
technical skills, musicality, and hopefully enjoyment involved in playing an instrument’. In
addition to nurturing pupils, responses suggested that private teachers felt responsible for
their pupils’ own personal development as individuals. For example, P107 responds
saying that private teaching involves ‘teaching them about themselves’. Similarly, P155
says that private teaching ‘involves great personal care, as I find I teach best when I've
come from whole hearted space’. Overall, P185 states that private teaching involves ‘love
for one's fellow human’.
Twenty-one (21) respondents referred to the role the private teacher plays beyond music
itself. P403 suggests being a private teacher involves ‘being more of a counsellor than a
music teacher, since private teaching is so personal’. Similarly, P371 writes that private
teaching involves being a ‘part time counsellor’, P329 going as far as to say a lesson can
be ‘40% counselling’.
133
Similarly, a number of these responses highlighted the role a teacher might play in being a
‘life coach’ (P30). P129 writes that as a private teacher, they are often a ‘mentor and
sometimes life coach’. Some respondents saw their role in more specific terms, P169
saying that they acted as a ‘social worker, psychologist, [and] physiotherapist’. A number
of teachers referred to the psychological support they offer, for example, P129 saying that
being a private teacher involves ‘being a psychologist’. Likewise, P155 says that being a
private teacher involves being a ‘psychologist and sometimes, parent’, whilst P468 says
that a teacher provides ‘psychological support’.
Overall, responses suggested that private teachers needed to be good listeners. P288
states that as a private teacher they need to be a ‘GOOD LISTENER (EVEN A
PSYCHOTHERAPIST!) [respondent’s capitalisation]’ and similarly P366 says ‘you have to
be a good listener as well as pupils come with their life's problems’. P183, P353 and P471
all said that private teaching involves ‘being a therapist’, whilst P319 says private teachers
require ‘counselling/therapy skills’. This echoes the contents of an article which suggests
that learning to sing is a cheap form of therapy; an anonymous singing teacher writes:
'In a nutshell, teaching singing is a responsibility, rather than a job. If you
understand that some of the people you teach are never going to be singers, but
just need an hour to relax, disgorge personal information, have someone really
listen to them, or even an hour just to feel special, then you have got what it takes
to be a singing teacher. Of course, knowing how to sing is helpful too.’
(Anonymous, 2016)
Responses suggest that private teachers are used to, and perhaps even expect to, fulfil
roles beyond teaching the instrument itself, and from the examples given above, this may
extend to roles such as psychotherapy which are highly regulated professions in their own
right.
5.5.9 To boost confidence, motivate, and build self-esteem in pupils
Eight percent (8%, n=39) of responses highlighted the role of the private teacher in
‘boosting confidence’ (P67) and ‘confidence boosting’ (P54). Responses suggest that
private teachers were aware of the need to develop pupils’ confidence (P103) and to
improve ‘their [the pupils’] confidence levels’ (P107). P205 highlights the need for private
teachers to have ‘confidence in the student’. P397 suggests that the role of the private
teacher includes ‘giving students confidence, so they can begin to explore and develop
their singing voice’.
Similarly, a number of these participants highlighted the role the private teacher plays in
motivating pupils. Responses suggest that private teachers themselves may feel
134
responsible for this, P310 saying their role was to be ‘motivational for my students’, and
similarly, P329 saying they needed to be ‘100%...motivational and inspirational’. P388
suggests that the role of the private teacher includes ‘motivating pupil's interest’. P451
suggests that private teachers need a ‘motivational personality’, and P441 highlights the
need for private teachers to have a ‘good understanding of…student motivation’.
P266 highlights the role private teaching plays in ‘encouraging self-belief’, going on to say
their role involves being ‘a builder of self-esteem’. They suggest that this includes
‘encouraging acceptance of mistakes’ and ‘encouraging a determination to succeed’.
Overall, as suggested by P37, private teachers may play a role in ensuring pupils
experience the ‘joy of conquering’ themselves. Similarly, P318 highlights the role private
teachers play in pushing pupils ‘beyond their perceived ability’, and as suggested by
P335, ‘getting the best out of them’.
5.6 The business of private teaching
In light of the interviews conducted in phase one, it is perhaps unsurprising that many
responses referred to the business aspect of being a private teacher. Indeed, responses
suggest that this was one of primary factors setting private teachers apart from those
teaching within an institution or similar framework.
5.6.1 Provision of a suitable learning environment
Generally, private teachers referred to either teaching from home, teaching in pupils’
homes, or a combination of both. This is summarised by P254 who says that private
teaching involves teaching in an ‘environment away from school’. Three respondents went
on to highlight this further: P475 said private teaching involved ‘teaching someone outside
of a pre existing network of music lessons and teaching eg. Within schools or a city music
service’ whilst P476 writes that private teaching involves ‘teaching [the] instrument outside
of [an educational] establishment eg teacher/ pupil's home, other mutually convenient
place’. P483 summarises both these responses, saying that private teaching involves
‘teaching singing or music in any setting except schools’.
It is worth noting that in terms of pupils having lessons at the teacher’s house, a number
of responses suggested that teachers were aware this involved opening up a space which
would normally remain private; for example, P117 highlighted the fact that private teaching
involved ‘opening your home to some pupils and their parents’. Likewise, P164 said
private teaching ‘involves allowing people into your home and also their families’.
Similarly, P226 says that private teaching involves ‘having people into your own home for
135
lessons’. P324 highlights the fact that private teachers need to be ‘willing to let people into
your home’. Responses suggest that a shift, both physically and mentally is required for
the home to become an optimal space for learning, for as one respondent (P353)
highlighted in very practical terms, there is need to ‘keep the downstairs loo clean at all
times!’ Whilst this is a concern in many areas of education, including those not related to
music, in contrast to private teaching, teachers do not necessarily under normal
circumstances expect to undertake such tasks themselves.
A number of advantages of teaching from home were highlighted, P76 saying private
teaching involved ‘working at home with my own instruments and teaching resources’.
Responses indicate that pupils coming to the teacher’s home was also of benefit; for
example, P308 said ‘I like working from home, the pupils come to you’. That said, not all
respondents saw teaching from home as advantageous, P319 saying that undertaking
private teaching from home required an ‘ability to negotiate with other members of the
household so that the space can be shared’.
A number of responses highlighted the importance of providing an optimal learning
environment for pupils in which the learning could take place. Some responses highlighted
the practical nature of this, P341 saying that private teaching involves ‘having a good
space in which to teach’, whilst P360 says it involves ‘making sure your house/music room
is suitable for the task’. Likewise, P437 suggests that private teachers need to ‘have an
appropriate studio space’ and in this respect, P394 says private teaching involves ‘tidying
up my house fast’.
Other responses described an optimal learning environment in an atmospheric sense. For
example, P50 suggests that private teachers need to create a ‘happy and positive
learning environment’, whilst P323 suggests similar, saying a ‘supportive, student
focussed and student friendly setting’ is needed. The way in which the environment had a
positive effect on learning was also highlighted, P42 saying that in these circumstances,
‘student's learning needs are addressed in such a way as to ensure optimal learning and
success’. Similarly, P37 highlights the need for private teaching to involve ‘cultivating an
open and creative environment that is challenging and [trust building]’. These responses
suggest an awareness that the environment can have an effect on pupils’ learning.
Responses from those who travelled to pupils’ homes to teach suggested this experience
was not wholly positive. P366 said that private teaching involved a ‘lot of travel’, whilst
P377 responded that private teaching involved ‘travelling, travelling, travelling’. This
echoes the experiences of Participant A (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.1) who talking of
travelling to pupils’ homes to teach, said:
136
‘you may be the cleaner, the level of importance is just right at the bottom for some
people, especially when they’re used to having people turn up at their houses, you
know, to do various tasks or various jobs and things.’
This reinforces the varying perceptions of the status of private teachers.
5.6.2 Marketing their business
Twenty (20) respondents referred to the need for private teachers to be effective in their
advertising and marketing. P38 highlights the need for private teachers to undertake
marketing in order ‘to ensure a steady stream of pupils’, and likewise, P55 reiterates that
private teachers need to ensure they have ‘enough students to pay the bills’. Likewise,
P187 highlights the need to generate income, saying private teachers need to use
‘marketing and communications to maintain income’. References to advertising and
marketing referred, in the main, to finding new pupils, with an awareness, as highlighted
by P187, that there is ‘always need to promote yourself’. P327 mentions the need for
private teachers to be ‘proactive about finding new work’, whilst P455 writes that private
teachers need to undertake ‘heavy recruiting’.
The skills needed for effective marketing and advertising were also mentioned. P86
highlights the need for private teachers to know ‘the local market value of what [they] do to
ensure that [they] keep students’. Also highlighted was the fact that private teachers are
required to have the ‘ability to "sell oneself" and describe lessons to prospective students’
(P230). The practicalities of advertising and marketing were rarely mentioned, with only
P353 saying that private teaching involves ‘advertising your business, having a website,
creating and maintaining a presence on social media sites’. As has been the case in
previous research (Zhukov, 2013), a lack of what teachers saw as ‘business training’ was
also highlighted by Participant A in phase one (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.7).
5.6.3 Administration and financial considerations
In continuation of the theme above, 20% (n=99) of respondents referred to the need for
private teachers to be versed in the administration of running a business. In particular,
being responsible for their own financial record-keeping was highlighted. In that respect, it
was recognised, quite extensively, that being a private teacher involved the aspects of
being self-employed or a ‘sole trader’ which would affect any other business operating on
a similar basis. P164 points out that private teaching involves the ‘usual jobs associated
with being self-employed’, and similarly, P92 highlights the overall need for an ‘awareness
of teaching as a business’. P220 suggests that private teachers are effectively running as
a ‘SMB; small/medium sized business’ or alternatively an ‘SME (small/medium
137
enterprise)’. In summary, P439 indicates that private teachers are effectively ‘small
business owners’.
Whilst the majority of responses recognise many of these administrative activities as
essential parts of running a business, several responses suggest that not all teachers see
these as positive aspects of teaching. P96 suggests that private teaching requires and
involves ‘more administration than you might think there would be!’ whilst P296 suggests
that an additional amount of time is spent, unpaid on ‘administration’. This is in contrast to
responses which recognised that pupils are not paying solely for the lesson time itself, but
additionally, all of the administration and associated work which goes with that lesson.
Responses related to finance and in particular, tax, dominated; for example, invoicing,
accounting, self-assessment tax returns, banking, bookkeeping, collecting and managing
payments were all mentioned. Also related to financial concerns were the need to issue
and maintain appropriate contracts, policies, or sets of terms and conditions.
Also mentioned was the need for private teachers to be appropriately insured. Responses
recognised that this may vary depending on circumstances, but may also be dependent
on the hiring, renting and maintenance of facilities. These responses suggest private
teaching does not necessarily have to be a home-based business. Also highlighted were
general administration tasks such as paperwork (e.g. exam entries) and reporting to
parents (e.g. lesson notes and written reports). These responses are summarised by
P296 who says ‘as a private teacher you have to pull all aspects of business or tuition
together & present [it] as a package’.
5.6.4 Qualifications and continuing professional development
Eighty (80) responses related not just to the notion of private teachers being qualified, but
also that private teachers felt responsible for and committed to their ongoing training and
development. P124 suggests that a private teacher needs to be a ‘self-starter’ requiring a
‘lust for continual professional development’. P168 highlights the need for private teachers
to possess a ‘willingness to learn’, whilst P195 writes that ‘one has to be conscientious
about one's own professional development’. Similarly, P269 says that as a private
teacher, you need to take ‘charge of your own CPD’. P311’s response highlights the
potential isolation of private teachers, saying ‘as I don't teach around other teachers I find
that I have to keep up to date with CPD (continuing professional development) courses
etc to make sure that I am up to date’. Previous research (Upitis et al., 2017) found that
teachers reported high levels of engagement in CPD.
138
Responses indicate that professional development can take many different forms. P18
suggests private teaching involves ‘keeping up my own CPD by reading up on best
practice, and participating in subject related CPD such as The Curious Piano Teacher's
website, as well as attending courses like The Music Education Expo’. Other respondents
cited other examples of CPD such as workshops, online courses and masterclasses.
The need to keep reading about one’s subject was highlighted; for example, P56 relates
their desire to read ‘articles on professional singing and vocal health tips’. P302 writes that
private teaching involves ‘reading journal articles’. In addition to reading, listening was
also highlighted, P306 saying ‘encouraging listening broadly to others singing’ is a ‘part of
the process of learning’. Responses suggested there was a need for private teachers to
remain up-to-date with the latest research, whether that be in the form of general research
or as P40 says, ‘researching ideas’. P129 writes that for them, private teaching involves
‘constant learning in the field of pedagogy/vocal science’. P82 suggests that private
teaching involves ‘staying up to date with teaching methods’ with P85 highlighting the
need to keep ‘up to date with the latest repertoire’. P52 also highlights the need for
teachers to research repertoire. P102 writes that private teaching involves ‘keeping
knowledge up to date’, and similarly, P129 highlights the need for private teachers to stay
‘up-to-date with musical trends’.
Also highlighted was the need for private teachers to continue having lessons themselves.
P13 writes that private teaching involves ‘personal musical development (practising and
taking lessons)’. P252 suggests that private teachers should also continue developing
their performance skills, saying there is a need for ‘keeping one's own playing and
performing ability’ in focus. Despite this, P151 highlights a notion that private teachers are
‘juggling music study too’, suggesting there are time constraints. Related to that, P201
indicates that for private teachers ‘all CPD would be self-funding’. That said, responses
also suggested that CPD could be seen as an investment, P302 saying private teachers
need to ‘invest in coaching / lessons / masterclasses’.
Although the majority of responses related to the development of musical or teaching
skills and knowledge, also mentioned was the benefit of developing skills outside the
teacher’s specific field, for example, P304 highlights the development of ‘related skills in
Alexander Technique and…Yoga, Pilates, Tai Chi’.
Echoing previous research (Burwell, 2005; Haddon, 2009), only two responses indicated
there was a need for private teachers to be qualified. P229 says that ‘a private teacher
should be as qualified as one found in a school/institute setting, and specially trained’ but
goes on to say ‘this opportunity I find lacking in the UK’. P234 writes that private teachers
139
should have undertaken ‘proper training first and foremost. A full time course in music
college to achieve good standards of one's own performance and that must include
principles of teaching’. No responses mentioned the need for private teachers to gain
additional qualifications once teaching.
P8 highlights the need for private teachers to have ‘pedagogical skills’. P437 suggests
that private teachers should undertake ‘pedagogy courses’, whilst P168 says that a ‘wide
knowledge of Piano Pedagogy and repertoire’ is needed. P309 suggests that private
teaching involves ‘pedagogy – a fascination with the theories and art of teaching and
learning’. Similarly, P158 says that private teaching involves ‘understanding the process of
development (physical, cognitive and emotional) in children and teenagers’. Echoing the
need for specialised teaching skills (Lehmann et al., 2007), P439 indicates private
teachers require ‘ideally not just knowledge of music/instrument/topic but also education’,
and similarly, P465 says ‘excellent knowledge and teaching skills’ are needed. Pedagogy
was also mentioned in relation to a specific approach, P276 saying private teaching
involves ‘always incorporating [Kodály] Principles of teaching music’.
5.6.5 Professional integrity and responsibility
There is inevitably some overlap here, as responses suggested CPD was seen as being
closely related to professional integrity. An overarching response came from P37 who
wrote that private teaching involves ‘having respect for your own professional integrity’. A
number of responses related specifically to the idea of teachers being professional. P465
responds saying that private teachers need to be ‘professional in every way’ whilst P446
says that private teachers need to ‘work in a professional manner’. Similarly, P302
highlights the need for private teachers to maintain ‘professional standards’, whilst P131
writes of a need for ‘professional conduct’.
In practical terms, a variety of aspects were mentioned in terms of being professional,
from the overriding sense that private teachers are ‘making lesson day a priority so that
you are available to students regularly and routinely’ (P230), to the need for a ‘high work
ethic, and pride (in the sense that one is not "just" a private teacher)’ (P229). The idea that
someone is not ‘just a private teacher’ is touched on by P146 who states that private
teaching involves ‘being as professional as when I was working as a peripatetic teacher
but without the stress of poor equipment and surroundings’.
Closely related to the notion of professionalism, was that of integrity, P266 responding
that private teaching involves ‘honesty and integrity’. The idea of honesty was picked up
also by P309 who stated that private teachers need ‘honesty about what one can't do or
140
doesn't know’. The idea of reputation was highlighted by P375 who said the private
teaching involves ‘building up a good reputation’, and P306 states that private teaching
involves ‘maintaining high standards’. Also highlighted was the need for teachers to be
careful, P289 saying that private teachers need to ‘work towards a sound and safe singing
technique’.
P22 suggests that private teachers require trust in their ‘own skills’, and this is further
highlighted by P365 who states that private teachers are ‘accountable to yourself and your
success is reflected in the pupils enjoyment and continuation’. Confidence is also
highlighted, P229 saying that private teachers ‘must be confident’ in their teaching.
A number of participants highlighted the importance of belonging to a professional
association. P360 states that as a private teacher, it is ‘essential to be a member of ISM
and EPTA, for the benefits they give’. Similarly, P365 states that private teaching involves
‘paying membership fees for being part of the local/national music teachers associations’.
As well deriving the wider membership benefits of belonging to such organisations, the
CPD opportunities they offered were also highlighted, for example, P325 saying ‘it is
important to develop as a teacher, so being a member of ISM, AOTOS and other
organisations can help to keep abreast of research and development’.
Closely related to the need to belong to a professional association was the need to remain
up-to-date with current law and legislation. P327 writes that private teachers need to
ensure they ‘stay up to date with legislation, such as safeguarding awareness and child
protection’. Similarly, P201 responded, saying ‘T&C, public liability, DBS (if you can get it),
proper insurances and registering with HMRC are all essential’ whilst P168 writes that
private teachers require ‘membership of a good association [such as EPTA] to provide
good insurance’.
Responses suggest that whilst teachers were aware of the need for training and
development, and the need to be professional, the requirement for private teachers be
qualified appeared either less important or was possibly taken as a given. As P156
highlights, private teachers are ‘competing with an unregulated workforce’; however,
suggesting highly contrasting views in this area, P307 suggests that everything else
involved in being a private teacher is secondary to ‘being qualified’.
5.7 Teaching activities
Finally, I will explore some of the activities which respondents indicated were undertaken
in the course of delivering the individual lessons themselves.
141
5.7.1 Planning and preparation
Thirteen percent (13%, n=64) of responses mention planning and preparation, generally in
terms of individual lessons rather than a curriculum or scheme of work. Again, mention
was made for the need to plan for each student individually (P94) and to provide bespoke
lessons (P218). A number of teachers have referenced the need to be well-prepared for
lessons, P90 saying that as a private teacher, they need to be ‘well-prepared so that
during lessons we can focus entirely on music’. Likewise, P272 writes that being a private
teacher ‘involves a lot of careful planning’, and P273 highlights the need for a ‘high level
of preparation for lessons’. Also mentioned is the need for private teachers to have the
ability (P375) and skills (P314) to plan lessons accordingly. The specific act of ‘lesson
planning’ is rarely mentioned, although P100 says ‘lesson plans include weekly, termly
and yearly’.
Although much was mentioned about planning generally, only a small number of these
responses related to planning a curriculum or programme of study, something reflected in
Jorgensen’s (1986) study. A number of responses related to designing a curriculum
which, once again, needed to suit the needs of individual pupils. P45 said that being a
private teacher involves developing ‘a programme designed to suit the student
individually’, and similarly, P147 says private teachers need to decide ‘on a curriculum for
each individual pupil’. As argued by Paynter and Aston (1970), P195 reiterates the need
for private teachers to develop a ‘pupil-centred curriculum’, whilst P434 writes of the need
for private teachers to plan ‘an appropriate pace and curriculum for each student’. Also
mentioned was the need for private teachers to provide ‘structure’ (P63) and a ‘sense of
direction’ (P448). P466 highlights the notion that pupils need to ‘grow in their talent and
achieve mastery of their instrument’, and this can be achieved through ‘sequential
lessons’.
5.7.2 Making, buying and acquiring resources
Twenty-two (22) responses referred to the need for private teachers to be responsible
both for buying and making resources for use in lessons. Responses suggested that by
being responsible for this, it enabled teachers to keep their teaching and lessons fresh.
For example, P71 writes ‘I decide which books to use and make purchases with
knowledge, most of the time, and try new books and approaches to keep things fresh’.
Similarly, responses indicated there was also a need for private teachers to keep abreast
of the latest repertoire and resources, P85 saying there is a need to keep ‘up to date with
the latest repertoire’ and P280 highlighting the act of ‘going out and sourcing new music
142
on a fairly consistent basis’. Mention was also made of the need to maintain a knowledge
and understanding of technological developments, P309 writing that teachers need to
invest in and understand ‘technology, e.g. microphones, amplifiers, music and recording
software’.
Responses suggested that private teachers were aware they were providing and teaching
with their own resources (P405) rather than those provided by an institution. Similarly,
mention was made of the need for private teachers to create their own resources, but also
in terms of composing (P9) and arranging (P266) music specifically to suit the needs of
individual pupils. Specifically, P338 writes that they compose ‘pieces of music for students
(I work with a lot of 4-8 year olds and find that the easiest way to teach them is to write up
lots of easy tunes rather than dive into a music book that it will take them three years to
clock on to.)’. P5 specifically highlights the role of the private teacher in providing ‘stickers’
to pupils, suggestive of a desire to praise and motivate pupils.
5.7.3 Teaching and delivering lessons
Twenty percent (20%, n=98) of responses talked specifically about teaching and
delivering lessons as being part of the role teachers play. A number of responses here
highlighted that the role of the private teacher included teaching and working with both
children and adults, although others such as P83 specifically mentioned that the role of
the private teacher is to ‘teach children how to play a musical instrument’. Similarly, P108
talks of ‘teaching children’ and P117 responded that private teaching involved ‘spending
20-30 minutes tutoring a wide variety of individuals (mostly kids) in how to play an
instrument’. In addition to teaching, a number of participants used words related to
‘instruction’, for example, P160 says private teaching involves ‘encouraging people with
some music ability to work towards improving their skills with their chosen instrument
through instruction’. Similarly, P361 talks of ‘instruction of weekly lessons’. P69 indicated
that private teaching involved ‘intensive teaching’. No teachers referred to the provision of
musical experiences.
Respondents mentioned a range of skills which they taught, and which they saw as a
necessary part of the private teaching they undertook. These included teaching
composition, improvisation, executive skills, aural, ear-training, musicianship, and sight-
reading. The two areas which were expanded on more fully were teaching technique, and
teaching music theory and musical knowledge. P47 writes that private teaching involves
‘enabling them [the pupils] to master the correct technique’, and similarly P165 suggests it
involves ‘teaching good technique’. Responses suggested that any technique taught
should promote safe use of the instrument and body. P449 talks of the need to make ‘sure
143
they [the pupils] have the technical knowledge needed to achieve their goals’, and
similarly, P395 suggests that private teachers should ‘foster the necessary technique for
the instrument’. P450 highlights the role technique plays more widely, saying that private
teaching involves ‘making sure they [the pupils] have the technical knowledge needed to
achieve their goals’. Indeed, previous research (Lehmann et al., 2007; V. Young et al.,
2003) found that ‘good’ technique was highly valued by teachers.
The responses in respect of the teaching of music theory and musical knowledge related
predominantly to note-reading and, as suggested by P75, ‘how to read music’. Other
areas mentioned included teaching meter and rhythm (P132), keyboard harmony (P224),
form (P330), music history (P433), scales, chords, arpeggios and cadences (P443). Like
P284, a number of respondents mentioned the role private teachers play in ‘teaching
theory alongside practical’, and overall, responses indicated private teachers should be
‘instructing pupils in the skills and knowledge they need to make music’ (P12). In contrast
to Paynter and Aston (1970), these responses suggest that teachers compartmentalise
these skills.
5.7.4 Preparing pupils for exams
Eight percent (8%, n=40) of responses explicitly mentioned the role private teachers play
in preparing pupils for graded music exams and assessments. Overall, responses
suggested that teachers prepared pupils for graded exams ‘where appropriate’ (P243 and
P275). Some responses demonstrated an acceptance that not all pupils wish to take
exams, for example, P117 writes ‘some may not wish to go down this route’. P256
highlights the different reasons people learn an instrument, saying that private teachers
are required to teach to ‘individual needs- eg exam, non exam, hobby’. P394 highlights
the role of the private teacher in making an assessment about exam readiness, saying
they need to be willing ‘to put pupils through exams and tell them honestly when they are
not ready’.
There were, amongst the mentions of graded exams and assessments, two opposing
views. P357 suggested that private teachers should be pro-exams, actively encouraging
pupils to take them, highlighting the role of exams as ‘milestones (demonstrating skill
levels attained)’. In contrast, P34 highlights that as a private teacher, there is ‘great
satisfaction seeing people learn, being able to judge your pupils progress without Grades’.
This is suggestive of the greater freedom which teachers may possess when teaching
privately, where, as mentioned by Participant A (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.2), there does
not exist the institutional pressure to measure pupils’ progress through exams.
144
5.7.5 Preparing pupils for performances, auditions and competitions
Twelve (12%, n=59) of respondents referred to the role private teachers play in preparing
pupils for performances. The performances mentioned included concerts, recitals,
festivals, competitions, recording sessions and auditions. Some teachers saw it as part of
their role to seek out suitable opportunities in which pupils could perform. For example,
P85 writes that private teaching involves ‘finding suitable performance opportunities for
pupils’. However, responses suggest an awareness that it might be necessary for private
teachers to arrange their own performance opportunities for pupils, as suggested by P263
who says that private teaching involves ‘finding performance opportunities (either putting
on your own concerts or entering pupils for festivals/competitions)’.
The idea of arranging opportunities in which pupils could perform was mentioned fairly
widely. P74 writes that being a private teacher involves ‘providing performing
opportunities’, and similarly, P296 says ‘organising performance opportunities’. Several of
these responses mentioned, for example, the need for private teachers to be ‘organising
student concerts and performances’ (P82), with P254 highlighting the need for teachers to
be ‘offering performance opportunities such as concerts.’ In addition to concerts, P334
refers to a wider range of opportunities, saying that ‘organising masterclasses and
workshops are also an important part of teaching a musical instrument’. Also highlighted,
was an awareness of the need to offer opportunities to adult learners, for example, P285
says that being a private teacher involves ‘putting on concerts for them [the pupils] and my
adults to appear in; performance opportunities they wouldn't necessarily have otherwise’.
In addition to performance opportunities, some respondents referred to the notion of
teaching pupils how to perform. For example, P56 suggests that being a private teacher
involves teaching pupils ‘how to present themselves [in] auditions and competitions’ whilst
similarly, P395 writes of ‘mentoring of [students] in handling [performance] techniques’.
Likewise, P357 highlights the role private teachers play in ‘supporting pupils' development
of performance skills, including presenting opportunities for them to perform (which may
include recording)’ and P486 suggests that private teaching includes ‘helping him/her to
communicate with an audience and express his/her emotions through music’. Another
area mentioned was the psychological and emotional support which teachers provide, for
example, P357 highlighting the role teachers play in ‘supporting pupils through auditions,
which will inevitably often be unsuccessful’.
145
5.7.6 Giving feedback and making assessments
P71 suggests that private teaching requires teachers to ‘assess their [the pupils’] progress
and discuss this with them’. P151 says that private teaching involves ‘measuring
progress’, and P450 highlights the involvement private teachers play in ‘assessing
performance’. Assessment was mentioned mainly in terms of giving feedback, for
example, P306 suggests that private teaching involves ‘offering constructive feedback in
the lesson and follow up email where needed’, whilst P18 says it involves ‘giving feedback
to the student and where appropriate their parent(s)’. Responses also indicate that giving
feedback may include providing written reports for parents (P426).
Associated with feedback and assessment is the notion of problem solving and the ability
of teachers to analyse a pupil’s progress and performance. P80 says that private teaching
involves ‘being analytical and able to solve problems’. P249 expands on this, saying that
private teaching involves ‘analyzing all facets of their position and performance, and be
able to extrapolate and identify blocks to progress that they have or might have, providing
solutions and recommendations to rectify issues and/or problems’. Similarly, P76 says ‘I
like the fact that every pupil is different and every lesson involves interesting diagnostic
and problem solving activities’. Linked to the idea of problem-solving is that of having a
good ear, P287 saying that private teachers need ‘AN EXCELLENT PAIR OF EARS TO
DETECT THE SMALLEST TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES [respondent’s capitalisation]’.
5.8 Summary
Responses suggest that the role of the private teacher is a hugely diverse and complex
one. Teachers are required to undertake numerous roles, of which only a proportion relate
to the actual teaching of music itself. Overall, there is a strong sense that by teaching
privately, teachers are able to offer their pupils bespoke programmes of study, tailoring
their teaching approaches to each individual. Evidence suggests teachers felt that through
doing this, they were best-placed to facilitate pupils in reaching their goals and fulfilling
their ambitions.
Analysis of the data suggests there are multiple layers of teaching and learning at work,
something akin to Korthagen’s (2004, p. 80) ‘onion’ model related to teacher identity
shown in Figure 5 below:
146
Figure 5: Korthagen’s ‘onion’: a model of levels of change.
Korthagen’s (2004) argued that only the outer two layers, ‘behaviour’ and ‘competencies’,
can be observed by others. Teachers in the survey talked about their mission, their
identity and their beliefs, and whilst these influence their competencies, behaviour and
environment, they cannot be explicitly observed. I will, however, return to this idea in the
subsequent chapters, as it links with the notions of espoused theory and theory-in-use
discussed in Chapter 4 (section 4.5.5).
Statistics from my survey suggest that private teaching is a female-dominated industry
with 82.9% (n=395) of survey respondents being female. This is a slightly higher figure
than Cathcart (2013, p. 98) found when surveying piano teachers alone, with 79% (n=324)
in her study being female. Data indicate private teaching appears to be an industry
dominated by teachers aged 35 and over, with over 70% of respondents to my survey
indicating this, with some teaching well into their 80s. My survey suggests that in
comparison to Cathcart (2013, p. 99) who found that around 70% of piano teachers were
aged over 46, the inclusion of teachers of other instruments may lower the average age of
teachers.
Overall, responses to my survey suggest private teachers take their role very seriously.
They feel both a professional responsibility, and a responsibility towards their pupils.
When it comes to their pupils, that responsibility often extends beyond the music itself to
take into account their wider life experiences and development. That said, responses
suggest that teachers felt it necessary to set and be clear about boundaries, and that
Mission
Identity
Beliefs
Competencies
Behaviour
Environment
IMAGE REMOVED DUE TO COPYRIGHT
147
despite the individualised nature of the service they provide, responses tend to indicate
they believe they should retain some control over what is taught.
Survey responses suggest that private teachers feel fairly confident in describing what
they consider the most important aspects of their teaching to be. In some cases, this
might by the acquisition of technique, while in others, it might be instilling a lifelong love of
and passion for music of all kinds. The length and breadth of responses suggest that
teachers think deeply about what they offer their pupils, and much was written about the
need to keep up-to-date with new repertoire and wider developments within education and
beyond.
Evidence in the dataset suggests that private teachers recognise the benefits of
continuing professional development and ongoing training, though the acquisition of
specific qualifications appears to be of lower priority. There was an awareness that
professional development and training was something which private teachers were solely
responsible for, and that within that, time and financial constrains may exist. Whilst
teachers recognised the value in belonging to a professional organisation, they were
aware that opportunities for developing skills, particularly those beyond the music itself,
were limited. In their role as private teachers, many different skills were needed: these
ranged from instrument-specific knowledge and technique to pedagogical skills; from
bookkeeping and accounting to marketing and self-promotion. Responses highlighted
extensively an awareness that teachers were running a business.
Responses to the survey suggest that teachers felt that by teaching privately, they had a
greater degree of autonomy. Overall, evidence indicates they feel this enables them to
offer an individualised service to a wide and diverse range of different pupils. In the next
two chapters, I will consider how teachers make choices about what is and is not covered
in their lessons, and how private teachers perceive teacher control and pupil input when it
comes to making such decisions.
148
6. Private teachers’ perceptions of involving pupils in ‘what’
and ‘how’ they teach
6.1 Introduction
In Chapter 5, I considered the ways in which private teachers saw their role, both as
individual practitioners, but also the way in which their engagement with pupils can affect
their practice. In the survey responses, teachers described a variety of skills, concepts
and activities which they included in their lessons, ranging from the basics of technique, to
composition, improvisation, and performance skills. Responses suggested that teachers
have clear views about what their lessons should include. This chapter takes this a step
further, and centres on the survey questions in which teachers were asked how they
involved pupils in both ‘what’ and ‘how’ they taught.
6.2 Statistics
In the survey, teachers were initially asked how important it was for them to be able to
choose what and how they taught. They were asked to respond to these questions
indicating whether this choice was very important, important, somewhat important, not
important, or something they had never considered. The outcomes are given in Tables 13
and 14 below and are shown as a comparison in Figure 6.
Table 13: As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose WHAT you teach?
(n=484)
Very important
287
59.3%
Important
132
27.3%
Somewhat important
57
11.8%
Not important
6
1.2%
Never considered it
2
0.4%
Table 14: As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose HOW you teach? (n=484)
Very important
370
76.5%
Important
90
18.6%
Somewhat important
16
3.3%
Not important
5
1.0%
Never considered it
3
0.6%
149
Figure 6: Comparison of responses related to the importance teachers placed on their
ability to choose WHAT and HOW they taught.
Responses to these two questions indicated that all but a handful of private teachers
considered it important that they retained the ability to choose what and how they taught;
however, as shown in Figure 10 above, a greater number felt it was very important to be
able to choose how they taught as opposed to what they taught.
Teachers were also asked whether they involved their pupils in choosing what and how
they taught. These outcomes are given in Tables 15 and 16 below and are shown as a
comparison in Figure 7.
Table 15: Do you involve your pupils in choosing WHAT to teach? (n=482)
Yes
467
96.9%
No
15
3.1%
Table 16: Do you involve your pupils in choosing HOW you teach? (n=479)
Yes
279
58.3%
No
200
41.7%
150
Figure 7: Comparison of responses related to the involvement of pupils in choosing WHAT
and HOW they were taught.
Comparing both responses to this question, it is possible to see that private teachers
involve their pupils far more in what, rather than how they teach. This may suggest that
although private teachers place more importance on their ability to choose how to teach,
they involve pupils less in this.
6.3 Involvement of pupils in choosing what is taught
In this section I will consider how teachers perceived that they involved pupils in choosing
what was taught, in other words, the lesson content, or the curriculum. Data discussed
here relate to questions 27 and 29, and as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6),
thematic coding of these responses took place. Responses are discussed here under the
following eight headings:
6.3.1 Repertoire choice;
6.3.2 Exams;
6.3.3 Lesson structure;
6.3.4 Practical approaches to choice;
6.3.5 Pupils make particular requests;
6.3.6 Discussion and consultation with pupils;
6.3.7 Listening to and asking pupils;
6.3.8 Collaboration with pupils.
151
6.3.1 Repertoire choice
When asked how they involved pupils in choosing what was taught, survey responses
suggested that, in the main, this manifested in a choice of repertoire. Previous research
has highlighted the central role repertoire plays (Daniel & Bowden, 2013; Jorgensen,
1986; Upitis et al., 2017), and indeed, P224 responded to this question, saying ‘I assume
you’re talking about repertoire, here’. In the main, responses suggested that teachers
were willing to give pupils a choice over the pieces and songs they learnt during their
lessons, and that by allowing pupils to learn things they wanted to, this had a positive
effect on motivation and by consequence, practice at home. This positive effect has been
documented in previous research (Mackworth-Young, 1990a; Mark, 2007), though as
discussed in Chapter 5 (sections 5.4.8 and 5.6.4), survey responses indicated that
teachers saw the selection of repertoire as one of the roles required of a private teacher.
Although teachers appeared keen to offer their pupils choice, responses suggested there
were a number of limitations placed on this, for example, P28 says ‘I give pupils choices in
repertoire when appropriate’. Responses suggest that these limitations often manifested
themselves in allowing pupils to choose from a selection of pieces pre-chosen by the
teacher. For example, P2 writes, ‘I make suggestions and I play pieces to see if they [the
pupils] like them’, and similarly, ‘I perform a selection of pieces so that they [the pupils]
can choose those which they wish to learn’ (P15). Likewise, P39 writes, ‘I often give them
[the pupils] options of a few pieces – I play to them and they choose’. By pre-preparing a
selection of pieces from which pupils could choose, this suggests that choice of
‘appropriate’ repertoire is something teachers may wish to retain some control over.
Based on the survey responses, teachers often required pupils to choose from a relatively
small number of pre-chosen pieces, three being a particularly popular number. For
example, P69 writes that they ‘sometimes [I] show them 2-5 pieces to choose from’, and
similarly, P276 says, ‘when the occasion arises I often give a small choice from what I had
previously selected – i.e. a fairly narrow choice’. In some cases, the allowed selection was
restricted to two pieces, for example, P20 says, ‘I give choices to my younger students by
playing them a couple of pieces and ask them which they would like to learn’.
In addition to choosing pieces, some teachers used the same approach when allowing
pupils to choose repertoire books, P40 saying, ‘sometimes I give them [the pupils] choices
between a few books for what we are going to move on to’. P257 writes that they ‘show
them [the pupils] the book of music and if they do not look keen I would obtain something
else’. This suggests that there may be situations where teachers only offer an alternative
choice if pupils do not like that with which they are first presented. This issue is also
152
highlighted by P67, who says, ‘normally I demonstrate and hope they like my suggestions!
If they don’t I might think again’.
Some teachers highlighted that by using an approach such as this, they could encourage
pupils to play pieces from a range of different genres, for example, P52 says they play
‘examples of many different styles of music’ from which pupils can choose. Even so, such
an approach also has the potential to restrict choice, P4 saying ‘I will often give pupils a
choice of pieces to learn in a particular genre’.
Data suggest that allowing pupils to choose repertoire was something best suited to ‘own
choice’ pieces, suggesting that these are to be considered differently to those chosen by
the teacher. For example, P12 writes, that they involve pupils ‘in the selection of “Own
Choice” pieces by playing a selection’. A number of responses suggested that repertoire
choice was permissible so long as the pieces chosen fulfilled the teacher’s aims, for
example, P137 offers their pupils ‘a choice of repertoire which covers the skills I need to
teach’, and similarly, P167 says ‘I play them a selection of pieces covering what I want
them to learn next and they choose’. Responses suggested that by allowing pupils to
choose pieces from a pre-defined selection, this ensured pupils were acquiring what
teachers considered to be the necessary technical skills, for example, P107 writes, ‘I
decide on the technical skill we’ll work on, then find a choice of pieces that work on it.
They then get the choice of which they learn’.
Responses suggest that choice was primarily facilitated as a result of the teacher playing
a selection of pieces from which pupils could choose; however, listening to recordings of
potential pieces was also highlighted as an alternative approach. For example, P23 says
they, ‘give them [the pupils] listening lists of pieces they can choose from’, and similarly,
P68 says that choosing new pieces can happen ‘by playing recordings to them [the
pupils]’. P193 offered an alternative approach, saying, ‘when we have [finished] with an
etude for example I then let them choose the next etude. They have to find an etude out
of a pile of music which I will give them’.
Teachers were aware of the importance of repertoire, and appeared keen to encourage
choice over that by allowing pupils to bring their own pieces or ideas, for example, P47
writes, ‘pupils often mention pieces they want to learn, and this gives them a feeling of
achievement’, and P71 says ‘my pupils are encouraged to bring music they find or have
been given’. As in previous research (Duke, 1999), responses suggest that some teachers
placed a good deal of importance, especially in terms of motivation, on this, P233 saying,
‘I am always delighted when they [the pupils] suggest pieces that they want to learn’.
Although teachers were sometimes surprised at the choices pupils brought, for example, ‘I
153
encourage them [the pupils] to give me ideas of what they want to play. This has even
involved them bringing in music that they have sourced which accompanies their
computer games!’ (P351), overall, they saw this as a positive.
Whilst pupils were often encouraged to bring their own repertoire ideas to their lessons,
responses suggest that teachers felt there were limitations to this, for example, P429
says, ‘they [the pupils] bring ideas along…but I have the right to veto!’ P281 felt that if
pupils were to bring their own materials, these were in addition to the repertoire chosen by
the teacher, for example, ‘if they bring me some music they’d like to learn I’m willing to
teach them this alongside the other pieces I’ve set them’. In contrast, P224, suggests that
pupils bringing their own pieces to work on was a negative influence on the lessons, as
they write, ‘sometimes, pupils bring music to me, and I don’t always regard it as useful to
learn, but encourage them to look at it on their own’. Responses such as this suggest that
whilst teachers teach pieces which they value directly, they may not actively seek to teach
those which hold value for others (Swanwick, 1994).
A number of responses suggest that whilst pupils bringing their own ideas was to be
welcomed, these should be used alongside teacher-chosen pieces as supplementary
material. For example, P3 writes, ‘although the curriculum, learning aims and core
repertoire are set by me, my pupils are given the opportunity to try out and select different
[genres] of supplementary repertoire to achieve the learning aims’, and P30 says ‘I give
my students choice of supplementary music’. It is unclear whether such ‘learning aims’ are
set by the teacher or pupil, or as a result of collaboration, and therefore by consequence,
it is not possible to tell how this might affect the choice offered. Overall, responses
suggest that often, pupil-chosen pieces were seen as ‘extras’, for as P7 says ‘regarding
the overall system of learning there are no choices left to the pupils but they can choose a
few extra pieces’.
Teachers who talked about pupils bringing their own music to be used to supplement that
chosen by the teacher, referred several times to ‘pop’ music falling into this category. For
example, P5 says, ‘they [the pupils] can decide on popular pieces’ and P437 writes, ‘for
pops, they [the pupils] certainly have a say in what they would like to learn’. Similarly,
these ‘supplementary’ pieces appeared also to be seen as ‘fun’ pieces, for example, P363
says their pupils can ‘choose “fun” pieces (e.g. Disney, music theatre)’. These responses
suggest that as found by Green (2005), teachers may be aware of a gap between pupils’
musical culture outside and inside the lesson. It is not possible to tell whether teachers
sought to close this gap; however, as previously cited (Daniel & Bowden, 2013), teachers
were aware that popular styles of music were often of great interest to their pupils. In
some ways, as suggested by Folkestad (2006), there is no question of whether popular
154
music should be part of music lessons; it is often already there by virtue of being part of
the pupils’ musical culture outside. Of course, its presence as part of a pupil’s musical
culture, does not necessarily mean it is acknowledged or embraced in the lesson.
6.3.2 Exams
Although teachers were asked about how they involved pupils in choosing what they
taught, many responses focussed on exams, some solely on them. Firstly, some teachers
indicated that they offered pupils choice over what they were taught by allowing them to
decide whether or not they wished to take exams, for example, P62 writes ‘they can
choose if they want to do exams or not’ and similarly, P349 says ‘I usually discuss with the
students (and their parents) whether they want to work towards taking exams’. P46
indicates that as a teacher, they ‘let them [the pupils] decide the pace and quantity of
graded exams’ which may suggest that taking exams is not necessarily optional. In other
cases, teachers offered pupils a choice over exam boards (P284), for example, P140 says
‘they [the pupils] engage with choice [of] syllabus’. P149 says that ‘in their first few lessons
I give students a taster of different graded [syllabuses]’, although it is not possible to know
whether this is at the request of the pupil, or because it is expected that all pupils will take
exams.
In addition to the choice of whether or not to take exams, and the potential choice of exam
boards, teachers’ responses indicated that they offered pupils a choice of the repertoire
pieces they learnt for the exam. In contrast to the responses above (see Chapter 6,
section 6.3.1), some teachers indicated that pupils were given free rein to choose from the
entire syllabus, for example, P45 says ‘for graded students they [the pupils] always have
the choice of the whole syllabus’. Similarly, P190 says they ‘let them [the pupils] choose
their exam pieces rather than telling them what to learn’, and P50 writes ‘they [the pupils]
choose their own exam programmes’.
In contrast to those regarding general repertoire selection, responses suggest that when it
came to exams, pupils were offered a wider choice of the repertoire. P32 says ‘students
will make the choice themselves’, and similarly, P75 says that as a teacher, they ‘let them
[the pupils] choose their exam pieces’. Although teachers perceive themselves to be
offering a wider choice here, the contents of an exam syllabus is pre-determined. A pupil
will only ever be able to choose from an already narrowed down choice of options as
selected by the particular exam board and those who compiled the syllabus. It is possible
to consider this in terms of what Freire (1996) termed to be the perceived softening of
control, whereby a teacher appears to give choice; however, the choice has, to a certain
155
extent already been made. As shown in Figure 8, what starts as a huge body of repertoire
is first narrowed down by the exam board, and from which, a favoured syllabus is chosen:
Figure 8: Narrowing down of repertoire options when choosing exam pieces.
That said, evidence also suggests that some teachers approached the selection of exam
repertoire in the same way as general repertoire, by presenting a selection of pieces from
which pupils could choose. Several teachers indicated that whilst they were happy to give
pupils a choice, they felt they should retain some input, P106 saying pupils ‘are in control
of which exam pieces they choose, with guided input’, and P63 saying they ‘play exam
pieces to them [the pupils] and we decide together which pieces are best for them’.
Similarly, P316 says that ‘for exams – I often play the pieces and choose pieces with the
students’ suggesting this may be a collaborative process.
6.3.3 Lesson structure
A number of teachers indicated that they gave pupils a choice over what they taught by
allowing them to choose the order in which items of content were presented in the lesson.
For example, P3 says ‘pupils are sometimes given the opportunity to order which lesson
elements are addressed first. I try to give this opportunity but this does not always
happen’, and P17 writes that they ask ‘students what they would like to do first in the
lesson (sight-reading, scales, piece work etc)’. A response such as this suggests a
compartmentalised approach to the lesson content, and indeed, to musical knowledge. As
Paynter and Aston (1970) argued, elements of music do no live in boxes on their own,
something which Harris (2014) has sought to address in his ‘simultaneous learning’
Repertoire
Exam syllabus A
Pupil chooses from this
exam syllabus
Exam syllabus B Exam syllabus C
156
approach, popular with many instrumental teachers. In reference to allowing choice over
lesson content, P77 says that ‘depending on their [the pupils’] mood or energy levels, I
might give them a choice in what I teach that day’, and likewise, P80 responds saying that
they ‘may offer a choice of what to look at first’. They go on to say they ‘think this gives
pupils a stronger sense of taking control of their learning – even if I’m steering it’. This is
suggestive of Freire’s (1996) notion of ‘false generosity’, and in this case, the teacher
appears to be aware they are giving an ‘impression’ of control.
It is unclear why teachers feel offering a choice over the order of lesson content is
beneficial. Responses here suggest that allowing choice over the order of lesson content
is another way to offer pupils that choice, although there seems little direct benefit of such
action for either pupil or teacher. Analysis of these themes begins to suggest an emerging
dichotomy between what the teacher says, and what happens in practice, though it is
necessary to acknowledge the limitation that lessons were not observed in practice.
6.3.4 Practical approaches to choice
In addition to the above, a small number of teachers responded by indicating some
alternative practical methods through which they gave pupils a choice over the lesson
content. In the main, these presented the pupil with some method by which they could
give feedback on the pieces covered, thus influencing the teacher’s future choice of
repertoire. For example, P89 says ‘I use feedback forms’ and P384 says they facilitate this
by ‘giving [questionnaires]’. In a similar vein, P223 writes that their pupils ‘have [a]
comments folder for music’ and in the case of P323 ‘they [the pupils] mark music out of 10
on appeal’.
A slightly different practical approach was taken by P327, who writes that their:
‘studio chooses a different Theme to focus on each term, when we learn pieces
specific to that composer/singer/genre. All of my students are given a vote as to
what they’d like to see as the Theme.’
In the case of these examples, they once again speak predominantly of choice in relation
to repertoire. Whilst the feedback gathered may influence a teacher’s choice of the next
piece, it is not possible to tell whether such feedback is acted on. Similarly, whilst pupils
are allowed to vote on a studio’s termly theme, they are choosing from an already
narrowed-down selection.
157
6.3.5 Pupils make particular requests
A number of teachers referred to instances where pupils had requested to learn a
particular skill, for example, P4 writes ‘if a pupil specifically wants to learn chord-based
Pop or Jazz then I will incorporate relevant repertoire’ and similarly, P126 says ‘pupils
might bring in something they have downloaded and want to try. Pupils might work on
something they have been given by their school music teacher’. There was also a sense
that by encouraging pupils to bring their own ideas and requests to their lessons, it further
encouraged the development of independent learning skills, for example, P133 writes:
‘I let students bring me music they like – there will always be technique [or]
performance skills to work on. The [students] have to do their own research then
and take ownership of their learning.’
P87 says, ‘they [the pupils] let me know if they want to learn to play by ear, learn modern
or classical music, want to do exams etc…I also encourage them to learn all the others
too’. This suggests that despite them being willing to embrace pupil requests, these are in
addition to content chosen by the teacher.
6.3.6 Discussion and consultation with pupils
Some responses suggested that teachers gave pupils choice over what was taught by
means of discussion and consultation. In some cases, teachers discussed with pupils
what skills they wanted to learn, for example, P6 writes ‘occasionally, I will additionally
discuss and consult with pupils on the actual skills and concepts learnt/taught’. In other
cases, repertoire was once again the main theme of these discussions, for example, P38
says giving pupils input is achieved through ‘discussion of a range of pieces’, and
similarly, P13 writes that their pupils ‘actually discuss with me tunes and other things they
want to learn’. Also discussed with pupils was the style of music they wished to cover in
their lessons, for example, P17 writes that ‘sometimes it’s a case of having a conversation
around the style of music or things they’ve [the pupils have] heard’, and similarly, P41
says ‘we talk about styles of music they enjoy listening to’.
A number of teachers referred to the discussions which took place with pupils with a view
to determining goals and plans for the future, for example, P9 writes ‘I discuss goals with
them [the pupils] and the approach they want me to take, for instance, if they want me to
push them to be their best or if they feel too stressed at the moment’, and likewise, P231
says:
158
‘We discuss middle and long term aims on a regular basis, then I give them ideas
of how they can achieve these aims…I find teenagers and younger students
respond really well to taking charge of their own learning and outcomes.’
In a similar vein, P76 talks of ‘consulting’ pupils about ‘making a plan for the term or year’,
and P80 writes that they ‘will discuss with pupils what we can focus on in terms of learning
for perhaps a half term or term’.
Gathering pupil feedback was seen as important, for example, P82 writes that as a
teacher, they encourage pupils to ‘talk about what they [the pupils] like/dislike in pieces
they learn so I can select pieces they will enjoy in the future’. In some cases, teachers
referred to ongoing and more general consultation and discussion, for example P157
writes that ‘basically I chat to them, & pay attention to what interests them’.
It is not possible to tell from the responses how and if teachers take these discussions and
consultations forward, and how they impact, in practical terms on the choices pupils are
able to make. Overall, responses suggest that teachers were engaged with the process of
working alongside pupils and constantly reviewing the things covered in lessons.
Highlighting the notion of joint enterprise, a feature of a community of practice (Wenger,
2008), P309 says:
‘I do an extensive consultation, and don’t take their diagnosis, prescription or
prognosis at face value. We have to develop a shared definition of the situation,
what we need to work on and how. I make sure that we constantly review this.’
Similarly, P350 writes that as a teacher, the following are needed in order to engage
pupils in making choices over what is taught: ‘lots of discussion. Questioning. Agreeing
targets. Reflecting on strategic failures and successes. Analysing learning styles,
unpacking personal [prejudices] (theirs and mine.)’.
6.3.7 Listening to and asking pupils
Closely aligned with the notion of discussion and consultation, a number of respondents
were keen to point out that ongoing listening was necessary, for example P6 writes that
‘listening to pupils talk about their musical interests will also contribute to how I shape
learning experiences for them’. Responses suggest that listening to pupils was seen as
another means to elicit feedback on previous material and thus to influence future
choices, for example, P85 writes that as a teacher, they take ‘notice when they [the pupils]
say they like a piece or exercise’.
159
Responses suggest that by asking pupils what they wanted to do, teachers gave them
choice over the lesson content. In some cases, asking pupils what they wanted to do
began at the very first lesson (P303). Similarly, P55 says that ‘when they come for their
first lesson, I will always ask pupils what they want to achieve’, whilst P59 responds,
saying ‘at their [the pupils’] first lesson I ask them all to tell me their favourite composers’.
This evidence also suggests teachers needed to know what pupils wanted from their
lessons, for example, P188 writes that they ‘ask them [the pupils] why they are taking
lessons and what they would like to achieve’. Ascertaining pupils’ wider aims and
aspirations was also seen as important, P339 saying that they ‘always ask them [the
pupils] what their aims are’ and P393 saying they ask ‘where they [the pupils] will see
themselves in a [year’s] time’.
Finding out what pupils’ particular interests were was also something teachers saw as
important, for example, P31 says, ‘I ask them [the pupils] what songs they like’ and P66
writes that they ‘ask what [interests] them [the pupils] and match what I teach to their
interests’. In some cases, this extended to more specific questions about what pupils
wanted to learn, for example, P40 says that they ‘ask them what they [the pupils] want to
play’ and P81 indicates that they give pupils choice over what is taught ‘by asking them
[the pupils] to find pieces they want to learn’.
Responses suggest that teachers are aware that there is a need for ongoing questioning,
for example, P27 says that they ask pupils ‘to bring in music they enjoy or styles they
would like to try out’. Similarly, P70 says ‘I ask which is their favourite style’. Some
teachers felt that pupils’ answers to these questions could be used to influence the future
direction of the lessons, for example, P39 says they ‘ask if they [the pupils] have a
preference for a composer or style/genre to learn next, or anything they’ve heard and
want to play themselves’. Despite responses indicating teachers asked and questioned
pupils over their particular interests, likes and dislikes, it is not possible to know how far
this impacted the lessons.
6.3.8 Collaboration with pupils
A small number of teachers indicated that they offered pupils choice over what was taught
through means of collaboration. In some cases, teachers saw their role as a helper, for
example, P51 writes ‘I will help them to choose materials that attract them’. In other cases,
the establishment of aims, setting of targets, and evaluation of progress was seen as a
way to offer pupils choice, for example, P43 states, ‘we set targets together at the start of
each term, then evaluate together and separately at the end of each term’.
160
Although responses suggested teachers appeared keen to collaborate with pupils, to work
with them, to guide them and help them make choices, it is not possible to tell what role
the pupil might play in these. Whilst ongoing dialogue and joint evaluation are traits to be
welcomed, neither offers any guarantee that a pupil’s voice has been heard. Indeed,
Partington (2017) found that there were occasions where such collaboration between
teacher and learner simply served to uphold the traditional models of music education
practice, even though there were clear benefits to be derived from models, such as the
mentor-friend model (Lehmann et al., 2007), in which the pupil was less dependent on
their teacher. P158 highlights the need for pupils to have some ownership over the lesson
content, and by implication, some choice: ‘I see it as a partnership – they [the pupils] need
to have choice and feel that they also “own” their learning – they should feel that it is
different from school’. This suggests a perception that in private lessons, pupils are
afforded greater choice than they might be in general school education, something
previously highlighted (Wöllner & Ginsborg, 2011). This is perhaps unsurprising given
Bernstein’s (1975) assertion that the English school curriculum in particular is of a
‘collection’ type resulting in a fairly rigid hierarchical structure. It is interesting to note the
use of language in P158’s response. Emphasis is placed on the need for pupils to ‘feel’
ownership, which is not necessarily the same as having ownership.
In summary, responses suggest that teachers employed a variety of different means to
offer pupils choice over the lesson content. Teachers appeared to recognise the
importance in selecting repertoire appropriate to their pupils; however, responses
demonstrated a variety of limitations placed on these choices. Similarly, whilst pupils were
encouraged to bring their own repertoire ideas, responses suggest that teachers had the
final say in terms of what was and was not suitable learning material.
Pupils too, were often afforded choice when it came to exams, although this was generally
from a syllabus, a list of pieces already pre-selected by an exam board. Some responses
suggest teachers felt they were offering pupils choice over the lesson content by allowing
them to choose in what order materials were covered in the lesson; however, these
materials had been pre-selected by the teacher. Teachers demonstrated a keenness to
listen to their pupils and discuss lesson content with them; however, it is not possible to
know whether such dialogue is acted upon. Indeed, a number of responses focussed on
the need for pupils to ‘feel’ they had ownership or had been given a choice.
6.4 Involvement of pupils in choosing how they are taught
Responses suggest teachers found this question more challenging, appearing less able to
articulate their approach to involving pupils in how they taught. Many of the responses
161
repeated examples of how teachers involved pupils in what was taught, as discussed in
Chapter 6 (section 6.3) above. For example, P77 says that they give pupils choice over
how they are taught by asking them ‘do you want to play the race to middle C game or
shall we play the musical alphabet boogie?’, and P200 in that they ‘may give them [the
pupils] a choice with [exam] Boards if appropriate’. Responses suggest that curriculum
and pedagogy and are not necessarily well-understood, and this has influenced teachers’
responses; indeed, P109 writes, ‘this reply still seems to refer to the “what” rather than the
“how”’, and similarly, P157 concludes their response by saying, ‘maybe that’s not quite
involving them in HOW I teach [respondents’ capitalisation]’. On the one hand, the
wording of this question could be considered a limitation of this study; however, it also
raises questions in relation to private teachers’ wider understanding of such terms.
As in the first part of this chapter, following thematic coding of the responses to questions
31 and 33, responses are discussed under the following seven headings:
6.4.1 Learning strategies;
6.4.2 Discussion and consultation with pupils;
6.4.3 Asking pupils;
6.4.4 Trial and error;
6.4.5 Adapting to individual pupils;
6.4.6 Responding to special needs;
6.4.7 Learning environment.
6.4.1 Learning strategies
Although responses were limited, a number of teachers mentioned the need to alter the
strategies used to teach, depending on the pupil. In a practical sense, this might be
teaching by ear, through notation, or by rote; for example, P6 responds saying they
‘provide them [the pupils] with choices about HOW they learn music…For example: pupil
*prefers* learning by ear, but opts to learn to play music via the notation route because
they see the benefit of developing other skills [respondent’s capitalisation]’. Similarly, P3
says they would ‘suggest what repertoire I would cover through improvisation/rote learning
and propose what sort of note-reading material will also be used’.
Despite the sense that teachers wished to adapt the strategies used, depending on the
pupil being taught, in some cases, this adaptation occurred as a result of a pupil struggling
with something rather than as a conscious action: ‘one example would be where a pupil is
struggling with something. They could opt to learn through analysing it, learning by ear,
162
learning by rote, singing etc’ (P2). Similarly, P198 says, ‘if things aren’t working then I will
sometimes chat to the pupil about different strategies to try’.
Responses indicate that teachers were aware of the value in playing to the strengths of
their pupils and to match the way they taught to suit these. For example, P342 writes, ‘I
have students who have shown a clear strength in aural learning’, and similarly, P82
responded, saying they ‘notice how they [the pupils] learn best – e.g. explanation /
demonstration, or perhaps whether they need a fast or slow pace, or lots of short pieces
instead of fewer longer ones’. Also mentioned was the need to be aware of pupils’
preferred learning styles, for example, P129 says, ‘I take into consideration my student’s
learning styles and teach accordingly’. Similarly, P144 writes that they ‘assess whether
the pupil is auditory, visual, kinaesthetic. I embrace all 3 against a structural format’.
Whilst evidence suggested that teachers were aware of the need to meet the learning
styles of individual pupils, it is not possible to tell how much, if any, choice pupils were
given over this. For example, P17 says they ‘will provide written music, but I have [one]
student for grade 3 where we learned all three pieces without using the written notation’. It
is not possible to tell here whether the student has opted to learn all three pieces without
the written notation, or whether this was at the suggestion of the teacher. In the same way
teachers felt they involved pupils in choice of repertoire, by allowing them to choose from
a selection, the same could be said of learning styles. For example, P98 writes that they
‘always give examples of a few different [methods] and ask them to choose which they
prefer’. Responses here suggest that teachers place emphasis on what they perceive to
be pupils’ inbuilt learning preferences, rather than the learning environment itself.
6.4.2 Discussion and consultation with pupils
In the same way that teachers gave pupils choice over what they were taught through
discussion and consultation, responses suggest that the same techniques were employed
in order to establish how pupils wished to be taught. For example, P9 says:
‘I discuss with my students different styles of teaching and how much they want
me to dictate (such as fingerings and exactly what to practice each week)…my
discussing these things once or twice a year the students can feel some
autonomy.’
Similarly, P68 writes that they ‘encourage discussion and questioning’ and P80, that in
‘every lesson there is a dialogue’. That said, some teachers offered an opposite view
suggesting that unlike involving pupils in what was taught, choices over how it was taught
was something with which pupils were not involved. For example, P177 states that
163
allowing pupils choice over how they are taught comes ‘not by consultation but by
assessment of what works best’. Similarly, P181 writes, ‘I will adjust the pace of lessons to
each individual student. I will teach each student slightly differently but I won’t have
discussed this with the student’.
Once again, although responses suggest teachers are aware of the benefits of involving
pupils in decisions regarding how they are taught, it is not possible to know whether pupils
have any direct input. Whilst pupils’ views may be considered, through discussion and
consultation, responses suggest this may be extra to the teachers’ preconceived ideas
about how they should be taught.
6.4.3 Asking pupils
Teachers cited examples where pupils were asked about how they wanted to be taught, in
most cases, through questioning. For example, P12 says they ‘ask them [the pupils]
questions: Would you like me to show you this?’ and P23 writes that they ‘ask them
questions and guide them to their own conclusions’. P347 says that they will ask pupils
‘what can I do to help you?’ and P113 writes, ‘I ask them what they find easy and hard (in
other areas and in music)’. This questioning also encouraged pupils to evaluate how
effective the lessons were, for example, P33 says they ‘ask what is effective’, and P186
says they ‘ask them [the pupils] what works’. Similarly, P326 says they ‘ask quite
frequently how they [the pupils] feel about my way of teaching’ suggesting this could aid
teacher reflection and influence future lessons.
However, questions such as this appear to elicit factual answers, those which, for Bloom
(1956), fell into the cognitive domain. This lower-order questioning does not necessarily
allow for the evaluative, analytical or synthesising reflection available at the higher orders
of the affective and psychomotor domain. Whilst teachers may see such questioning as a
means of promoting self-reflection, its use is potentially limited. That said, the polar
opposites were represented here, from P114 who simply says, ‘I will ask them how they
want to learn’, to P229 who says, ‘I do not blatantly ask them if they prefer to be taught a
certain way’.
6.4.4 Trial and error
A number of teachers suggested that they found out what suited each pupil through a
process of trial and error. Whilst these responses demonstrates an awareness that
teaching needs to be adapted to each individual, it is unclear how much choice this offers
in practice. For example, P13 says, ‘I try out different [approaches] to find what suits each
164
child’ and similarly, P290 writes, ‘gradually we sort out the best teaching and learning
methods’. Some teachers were more explicit in their answers, P286 saying, ‘we discover
through exercises/trial & error what learning styles suit them [the pupils] best’, and P396,
‘sometimes it takes some trial-and-error to discover the most effective method’.
6.4.5 Adapting to individual pupils
Responses suggested that teachers appreciated the need to adapt their teaching to each
individual student. Whilst this did not necessarily afford pupils any direct choice, teachers
appeared keen to take their feedback and thoughts on board, even if these were not
necessarily acted upon. P21 states that ‘in a one to one situation you are able to take into
account the personality and ability of the student’. P93 states that, as a private teacher,
they ‘cater lessons to the individual’, and similarly, P22 says, ‘I adapt to each [student’s]
needs – this means that my lessons are led by them’. It is not clear from the responses
whether these teachers saw this ability to cater to the individual as a benefit of private
teaching, or of instrumental teaching more generally.
Teachers’ responses tended to recognise that each student was different, and this
affected the way they taught. For example, P47 says, ‘my style is adapted for each pupil,
some need a slower pace, some need behaviour boundaries etc’, and P35 writes, ‘each
student is different so they are inextricably linked with HOW I teach them [respondent’s
capitalisation]’. The importance of teachers getting to know each student as an individual
was also highlighted, P30 saying they ‘adjust depending on personality and learning style
of the student’, and as summarised by P122, ‘the ‘how’ happens as a natural reaction to
the individual’. The need to remain flexible was also highlighted, P126 saying:
‘I do not like to prepare lessons, so that the time with each person can remain fluid
and pupil-led. In a sense, pupils are ALWAYS involved in choosing how I teach,
because I am always responding to them and whatever comes up in their
pieces/scales etc. [respondent’s capitalisation].’
Some teachers’ responses suggested that they adapted to the individual when something
had not been understood, for example, P18 writes they only involve pupils in how they
teach ‘when they haven’t understood something’. P164, whilst appreciating the need to
tailor lessons to the individual, suggests that the pupils themselves do not necessarily
need to be involved, saying:
‘This was a hard question to answer because in a way it is yes in so much as I
respond to their interests and abilities in deciding how to teach. However they
wouldn’t really be aware of that. So I don’t involve them in an obvious way.’
165
I think this was a fair point to make and perhaps reflects the difficulty respondents found
more generally in answering this question.
6.4.6 Responding to special needs
Whilst the teachers surveyed mentioned the need to adapt to individual learners, a
number of teachers talked of this only in terms of pupils they taught who they perceived to
have special needs. For example, P169 writes that ‘although I have a system of teaching
that I use, I know that should I meet pupils with special needs…I must adapt my method
to one that they are comfortable with’, and similarly, P42 says ‘in particular, I work with
many students with special needs and I have to adapt HOW I teach based on where they
are on any given day [respondent’s capitalisation]’.
Examples were also given of teachers adapting how they taught individual pupils with
special needs. For example, P89 says ‘I work with [an] autistic child who loves to learn
aurally and is excellent at memorising from hearing me play and her technique is very
good’, and P270 writes, ‘I have two students with learning disabilities and how they are
feeling at the time when they attend lessons really dictates the content’. Likewise, P107
says they ‘have several students with dyslexia who learn solely by ear. I had to adapt my
teaching to them as I’d never taught aurally before’, whilst P231 writes:
‘I have a student who is hypermobile and I have to let her explain to me what
works for her and what doesn’t. Another who is borderline dyslexic will see a page
of music as a jumble and she has to explain to me, again, what works for her.’
Overall, responses here suggest that teachers expect to adapt their approach when
encountering a pupil who has been identified as, or is perceived as having, ‘special
needs’.
6.4.7 Learning environment
Finally, a number of respondents identified changes or adaptations to the learning
environment in response to how they perceived pupils preferred to be taught. In some
cases, these were practical changes, for example, P189 says they ‘have one pupil who
chooses to “Skype” once a month and come for a face-to-face lesson the other 3 weeks.
Her choice, which suits her’. In other cases, it was the context in which the learning took
place, rather than the physical environment, for example, P477 says pupils might choose
‘open classes (other students may listen) or choice of venue, in a chamber music setting,
coaching style’. As discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.6.1), despite teachers citing the
166
need to create a suitable learning environment, as demonstrated here, little was
mentioned of this in relation to the lessons and pupils themselves.
6.5 Summary
In general, responses suggest that teachers’ primary focus is on what is taught in their
lessons, and it is this area where they have spoken predominantly about the ways they
involve pupils. Overall, responses suggest that teachers found it harder to articular their
views on pedagogy in comparison to curriculum. Responses did, however, suggest that
teachers valued the opportunity to reflect on their practice, and whilst many found it
problematic articulating their views on pedagogy, they found the questions thought-
provoking.
Whilst throughout this chapter I have given many examples of means by which teachers
perceive that they offer their pupils choice, responses tend to indicate retention of a
degree of teacher control. This can manifest itself in limitations being placed on choice,
and boundaries laid down in a way as to restrict pupil choice. Much emphasis was placed
on the need to ‘ask’ and ‘consult’ pupils. P332 says that they ‘ask them [the pupils] if they
are happy for me to suggest songs’; however, given previously cited examples of teacher
dominance (Duke, 1999; Jorgensen, 1986; Persson, 1994, 1996), it is unclear how pupils
may respond to such questioning in practice.
Some teachers’ responses suggest that the notion of offering pupils a choice can be
defined in different ways. For example, P373 says ‘I follow strict lesson guidelines but if
the pupil doesn’t want to learn a particular concept I bring it in further down the line’
suggesting a temporary choice has been offered to defer an area of learning until a later
date. Another approach which responses suggested some teachers employed, was the
attempt to disguise what was being taught. For example, P471 says they offer a choice,
but ‘if a student suggests dislike of a technical exercise for example, [I will dress] it up
differently!’ This example is suggestive of false generosity (Freire, 1996), where a pupil is
given the illusion of being offered choice. There is a sense in both these examples that
teacher dominance tends to override pupil choice.
Further examples illustrate the problematic nature of ‘choice’ in instrumental lessons. For
example, P329 says that ‘every pupil is given a folder containing around 40 pieces pitched
at their level, ultimately we will cover them all, but it is the [pupil’s] choice as to what we do
when’. It seems here that pupils have been presented with a fait accompli rather than a
choice over the lesson content. They can choose in which order they learn the pieces, but
ultimately, all the pieces will be learnt.
167
Indeed, some responses suggested that teachers were aware that they were giving the
illusion of choice, rather than choice itself, for example, P344 highlights the way in which
pupils can be made to ‘feel’ as if they are making a choice, saying, ‘new pupils are shown
a range of books during an initial lesson…so they are made to feel they are making a
choice’. Similarly, with a subtle use of inverted commas, P280 writes ‘they [the pupils] are
happy they get to “choose” their repertoire’.
Some teachers were quite open about not involving pupils, for example, P4 writes, ‘in
terms of a general curriculum, learning the rudiments of music etc, pupils do not have a
choice in what I teach’. Also highlighted, in this case by P18, was the way in which pupil
input may vary, depending on age and/or ability level: ‘all but one pupil is pre Grade 1 or
working for Grade 1, so they are at a stage where they have limited choice’. I will discuss
the perceived limitations of pupil input further in Chapter 7 below.
I end this chapter with three interesting observations made by private teachers responding
to the survey. P147 highlights the limitation of pupil choice saying, ‘if they [the pupils] have
not done something before you can’t decide whether you want to do it or not’, suggesting
that without experience, such as that of the teacher, it is hard for pupils to make choices.
Secondly, as discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.6.5) above, teachers’ responses
suggested they felt a degree of responsibility towards their pupils, as in the case of P63
who writes, ‘I tell them [the pupils] that if they don’t understand something it’s always my
fault – it means I haven’t found the right way to explain it to them yet’. A response such as
this might indicate that teachers feel it is ultimately their responsibility to solve problems.
Finally, some teachers openly admitted a desire to retain control over the lesson, although
they sometimes recognised the problems associated with that. P226 writes, ‘I do not
appreciate being told how to teach and I am quite [prescriptive] in my teaching, that
doesn’t say I don’t let the pupils have any input’. I shall explore these themes further in
Chapters 7 and 8 below.
168
7. Do private teachers perceive there to be a limit to pupil
input?
7.1 Introduction
A theme which emerged in phase one was the notion of teacher control versus pupil
choice and freedom. This theme was explored further as part of my survey, particularly in
terms of the extent to which pupils should have choice over the content of their lessons.
In the previous chapter, I discussed how teachers perceived pupil input in terms of ‘what’
and ‘how’ they taught. This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of responses to
survey questions 37 and 38: whether there is a limit to the amount of input pupils can
have in terms of the lesson content. This question was borne out of this quote:
‘I slowly came to realize that there were some decisions that were not open…It
was unfair to ask them [the pupils] to be involved in a decision when the
conclusion was already known… I came to believe that limitless freedom was
insensitive to their [the pupils’] development needs and abilities, as well as
irresponsible on my part.’
(Johnston, 2001, pp. 25–26)
In response to this quote, I asked the following question in the survey which yielded these
results:
Table 17: Is there a limit to the amount of input a pupil can have in terms of the lesson
content? (n=475)
Yes
352
74.1%
No
123
25.9%
This suggests that the majority of the teachers surveyed believed there to be some limit to
the amount of input pupils can have. Teachers were also asked to indicate their reasons
for answering the above question as they did, and in this chapter, I will explore these
responses further. Following thematic coding of the data, three overall themes emerged:
7.2 Those who believed there was a limit to pupil input;
7.3 Those who did not believe there was a limit to pupil input; and
7.4 Contradictions between the two of these.
I will discuss each of these themes in turn.
169
7.2 There is a limit to pupil input
Of the 74.1% of teachers who felt that pupil input was limited, following coding of their
answers, responses outlining the reasons for this fell into these 10 codes, each of which is
examined further below:
7.2.1 Foundation set of knowledge and skills are required;
7.2.2 Pupil input may be restricted at certain times;
7.2.3 Pupils’ choice over repertoire selection;
7.2.4 Greater knowledge and expertise of the teacher;
7.2.5 Responsibility of the teacher;
7.2.6 There is a need for progress to be made;
7.2.7 Pupil input may be restricted because of age and/or level of ability;
7.2.8 Pupils can disrupt the lesson;
7.2.9 Pupils may resist lesson content which is perceived as ‘unpopular’;
7.2.10 Lesson content may be negotiated or borne out of compromise;
7.2.11 Lessons need a clear structure.
7.2.1 Foundation set of knowledge and skills are required
One of the themes which emerged was the need for pupils to receive a good grounding in
basic musical skills and knowledge. Responses suggested that whilst teachers allowed for
pupil choice, these foundational skills were often non-negotiable. As stated by P3 ‘there is
a foundational set of curriculum that a musician needs to grasp in order to “enjoy” music
making’. P12 makes this point too, saying ‘building up key skills requires an incremental
approach to technique and repertoire. All lessons include technical work, reading and
usually some pieces selected by me’. Likewise, P252 says ‘there are some aspects of
teaching which need to be covered regardless of whether the student is interested or
engaged, e.g. technical work, aural perception, theory’.
The notion of the need for a strong foundation was highlighted by P21 who writes ‘in order
to achieve a good performance of a piece there will be some groundwork that needs to be
done’. Likewise, P33 highlights the need for pupils to ‘keep progressing in fundamental
skills’. In a similar vein, P106 suggests that they ‘think it is important regardless of the end
goal to have basic technical and theoretical knowledge’. P234 writes ‘all students need to
learn technical [exercises] and theory of music. They get no choice in opting out of
basics’. P39 suggests that without a ‘minimum amount of classical and technical training’
pupils ‘would just muck around!’ Responses suggest that technique continues to be
something teachers feel is especially important, P212 saying ‘I’m happy to go with their
170
ideas of content as long as I have say over technique’. Several responses to this question
highlight an underlying need for ‘good technique’.
A key feature of many of the responses to this question was the notion that there would be
no point in having a teacher and taking lessons if a pupil did not want to acquire these
underlying ‘basic’ skills. In the words of P84, this is ‘why they [the pupils] select a
professional to learn from’. Likewise, ‘if they [the pupils] controlled every aspect of the
lesson then I would feel there was no point in me being there. Anyone could be their
teacher’. Such responses suggest that the early stages of learning might require a greater
degree of teacher input, as might be found in ‘scaffolding’ whereby over time,
responsibility shifts from the teacher to the learner (Bruner, 1960). Previous research has
also shown that as a pupil progresses, so the role of the teacher changes (Creech, 2006;
Hallam & Bautista, 2012). P239 suggests that teacher control may lessen as a pupil
progresses, saying ‘up to a certain level I feel it is important that each pupil has a good
understanding of elements such as technique, notation and aural skills so that different
content can be approached’.
Responses suggest that many teachers feel their pupils should be taught a set of
foundation skills, often centred around technique. Whilst there is likely to be some overlap,
the foundation skills which teachers mention are, in the main, self-defined and vary from
teacher to teacher. Teachers were often able to articulate what these foundation skills
were, for example, sight-reading, aural and theory; however, this suggests a
compartmentalising of individual skills, something Paynter and Aston (1970) cautioned
against.
7.2.2 Pupil input may be restricted at certain times
Some teachers felt that there were times where pupil input had to be restricted due to
external pressures, such as exams, concerts, recitals, and in some cases for non-musical
reasons. P195 summarises this saying that the degree of pupil input will vary depending
on ‘what is being prepared for and for what reason’.
Whilst Davidson and Scutt (1999), found that exams both aided and hindered learning,
survey responses suggested that at times when exams were being prepared for, by
necessity, teacher control increases. P157 says there is no limit to pupil input ‘unless of
course they have their piano exam looming & I need the whole lesson to work on that’.
Similarly, P223 says ‘an exam requires a more structured path’, and P2 writes that pupil
input is restricted ‘when an exam is looming and students need to focus’. P67 also
highlights the restrictions which exams can bring, saying ‘if there’s an exam in the offing
171
then it’s important to make sure all bases are covered’. P85, whilst encouraging pupils to
‘bring any new repertoire/activities/ideas to the lesson’ goes on to say, ‘of course there
has to be a limit’ for example:
‘if a pupil is working towards an exam deadline and only wants to play pop songs
because they haven’t practised their exam pieces or some pupils would happily
play “music snap” for an entire lesson without touching the piano.’
The limitations on lesson content in response to exams was highlighted further, P242
saying there was no limit to pupil input; however, ‘the lesson immediately before an exam
might be totally guided by the pupil’s worries or totally teacher led, according to what they
feel the student needs’. Again, P316 says it depends on the ‘context’ of the lesson, and
that ‘if it is exam or concert preparation, there may be various things that need to be
done’.
Responses also recognised that external circumstances could divert the course of a
lesson for completely non-musical reasons, for example P306 says ‘pupils turn up in an
emotional state and need time to debrief. This on the odd occasion has had to take the
whole lesson time, or lead to a planning session’. Similarly, there were times when
through no fault of the teacher, control passed predominantly to the pupil, P329 saying
that the pupils’ ‘concentration levels’ and ‘life/work/school/relationship issues’ affected the
balance of a lesson.
7.2.3 Pupils’ choice over repertoire selection
Overall, as explored in Chapters 6 and 7, repertoire was something where teachers
seemed most willing to offer a choice. As P359 says, ‘I’m open to my student’s
suggestions regarding the repertoire. I strongly lead the rest of their learning according to
what I see they need’; however, P232 says that even in relation to repertoire, pupils need
‘direction and guidance’, going on to say:
‘I would often choose repertoire that I think would help them achieve a particular
outcome, reflecting their own goals and explaining why I think a particular
piece/strategy/practice technique is helpful.’
Likewise, P24 writes that because students may not know what skills they need to learn,
limitations need to be placed on choice of repertoire, saying ‘different pieces teach the
student different skills’.
In response to the need for a strong technical foundation, a number of teachers
suggested that only certain types of music could be considered suitable for achieving this.
172
For example, P47 writes ‘there are certain techniques that need to be encountered which
can’t always be met in the music [pupils] choose’. Several teachers alluded to the fact that
classical music was the primary means by which such technical skills would be acquired,
P143 suggesting that in order to fulfil the technical requirement of learning an instrument,
pupils need to explore ‘classical works’. That said, other teachers highlighted the fact that
the repertoire itself was less important, P167 saying ‘I am teaching them the instrument,
not pieces’.
Again, responses suggest that technique was important to teachers, and this affected
repertoire choice, P66 saying that as a teacher, you ‘cannot neglect certain important
elements such as technique’. P142 alludes to similar concerns, saying, ‘a lesson entirely
teaching pop songs can be limited – so I will insist that we also cover technical skills’.
Generally, teachers felt that a limit needed to be placed on the amount of repertoire
chosen by pupils. P315 says ‘there is a danger that a teacher can lose control of the
lesson. Whilst I encourage input from pupils I won’t let them sing anything they like’. P219
says ‘they [the pupils] will sometimes choose to play certain or easy pieces in preference
to making significant progress’ and as P285 writes, ‘some would just sing pop songs if I let
them’.
Responses suggest that whilst teachers were not averse to embracing perhaps unfamiliar
repertoire, this was seen as limited in response to the acquisition of technical skills. One
response to that was to create a balance between teacher- and pupil-selected pieces,
P149 saying that:
‘I had one student that decided One Direction were the best thing ever and all they
wanted to do was One Direction [songs]. I agreed to do one song mixed with other
elements from my own syllabus.’
Responses suggest that a teacher’s own personal preference in terms of repertoire and
musical taste could affect pupil input, P172 saying ‘there is a limit to how much Disney I
can cope with’. P342 writes that ‘some of my students would happily spend an hour a
week on Justin Bieber every week if I left them to it!’ and P181 writes ‘a student can sway
my choice on repertoire but there is definitely a limit’. P392 writes ‘I hate Ed Sheeran’ and
P348 feels that there are ‘often too many songs from “Frozen”!’ Indeed, P221 suggests
that it is in the retention of control and restriction of pupil input that offers them some form
of job satisfaction, saying ‘I’m not a babysitter, and would not be willing to teach/listen to
non-stop heavy metal (or similar). Having a waiting list means I can be even more
selective’.
173
Responses suggest that emphasis was often placed on a teacher’s direct value of
individual musical works and genres. In some cases, certain styles and pieces were not
considered suitable learning materials, often on a technical basis, regardless of whether
they might be valued by the learners themselves. But as Paynter (1992, p. 13) asks, ‘what
is suitable?’ It is not possible to know whether, as suggested by Swanwick (1994),
teachers recognise that whilst some music may hold little value for them, it may hold value
others. Ultimately, responses suggest the question of value was often used to place
limitations on repertoire selection.
7.2.4 Greater knowledge and expertise of the teacher
One of the factors teachers cited as being a limiter to pupil input was that pupils did not
yet have sufficient knowledge or skill to make decisions about their own learning. P183
highlights the tension between teacher control and pupil input, saying ‘although I think the
lesson should be centred around the pupil’s wants, they simply don’t know enough’. P229
makes the point that there is a limit to pupil input ‘because they [the pupils] wouldn’t be
taking music lessons if they knew exactly what they needed to learn’. P251 simply says
that without some degree of teacher control ‘they [the pupils] may as well teach
themselves’, and as P289 says ‘they [the pupils] are there to be taught’.
As was the case with previous research (Sink, 2002), these responses suggest a
behaviourist approach to learning where the emphasis is on the acquisition of
predetermined chunks of knowledge rather than through collaborative meaning-making. It
is suggestive of the teacher being a dominant force in what Freire (1996) terms ‘banking
education’. Whilst a pupil might not have as great a specialist knowledge as the teacher,
as previous research found (Folkestad, 2006; Green, 2005), they bring much experience
and understanding from outside of the lesson, and derive much from the world around
them. Survey responses suggested that teachers placed little emphasis on external
musical experiences.
The perceived limits to what can be achieved without teacher input is highlighted by P49
who says ‘we all have our shortcomings in commitment, enthusiasm, and inspiration,
hence why a pupil seeks out a teacher who has more of these than that pupil does’. A
similar point is made by P51 who says, ‘if they knew exactly what they wanted, they would
be unlikely to seek your help’. P75 writes that without restrictions being placed on pupil
input, ‘information overload’ could occur. Similarly, P169 says ‘too much information
without consolidation [makes] lessons boring and rigid, 30 minutes can then seem like 2
hours or more’.
174
P226 highlights the notion that a teacher is more likely to know what pupils are capable of,
and is therefore in a better position to choose appropriate material:
‘a child who has been learning the violin for 6 weeks and then brings in a book of
film tunes and wants to learn [Star Wars] Theme tune for example, will not have
nearly enough knowledge or technique to do so. It is the job of the teacher to
choose what is appropriate for pupils at their level.’
As P338 states that ‘the teacher is a better judge of the suitability of content in terms of a
students ability, age and goals’. Similarly, P228 says that due to a lesser degree of
subject knowledge, pupil input is, by necessity, restricted, saying ‘when a beginner [wants]
to start by learning to play Grieg’s Piano Concerto at the first lesson [they] needed to be
persuaded that some preliminary work needs to be done first’.
In addition to the idea that pupils were not yet experienced enough to make decisions
about their own progress, also frequently highlighted was the perceived greater
knowledge and experience of the teacher, P98 saying:
‘As the expert, we know as the teacher that technique and theory are [there] in
order to achieve the pupils goal. The pupils are often unaware of this and need
guidance and advice.’
P220 writes ‘there must always be a teacher presence, due to greater experience,
training, and education’. P335 says ‘they are the pupil and have less [experience]’ and
P337 says input is limited ‘because the pupil is less experienced than the teacher’. P480
says ‘they [the pupils] will not know everything about music. Neither do I but I hope at
least I know more than them’.
Responses suggest teachers feel their underlying training, skill and knowledge provides
them with a greater degree of expertise. P222 simply says ‘I am the music teaching
expert’, P269 ‘I’m the expert’ and P224, ‘I’m a teacher’. The idea of expertise was
highlighted also by P243 who said pupil input is limited ‘because ultimately I am the
person who is skilled and experienced’. P332 says that pupil input is limited because they
‘feel [it’s] important for the teacher to continue to have authority and to lead the lesson’.
Although a good amount was written about the perceived expertise of the teacher, P271
recognises that this is only one part of the teacher-pupil relationship, saying ‘it is a
partnership, requiring input from both parties; because the expertise of the teacher is used
and drawn on to support pupils’. Whilst responses such as this suggest an awareness of
the need for collaboration, overall, responses suggest that the greater knowledge,
experience and expertise of the teacher was often used as a means to limit pupil input,
175
and by consequence, potentially increase teacher control. As P63 says, the pupils ‘don’t
know as much about it as I do’, and comparing music teaching to another subject, P156
says ‘teacher knows best. Maths students don’t get to choose what kind of maths they
learn’.
It is worth noting that maths students, unlike instrumental pupils, do not generally learn
with a private teacher. In the main, maths is an inherent part of the compulsory school
curriculum in the UK up to the age of 16, whereas, as teachers responding to the survey
have pointed out, those learning an instrument have, more often than not, opted in. As
has been suggested in previous research (Hallam & Bautista, 2012), this highlights the
notion of people learning an instrument for leisure purposes, reinforcing the idea that such
lessons are more likely to be something individuals opt into. Much of the existing research
relating to instrumental teaching has been conducted in universities, colleges and
conservatoires which do not necessarily reflect the breadth of pupils taught privately.
Previous research (McCarthy, 2017) has suggested that where amateurs learn for leisure,
both teacher and pupil may have to realign their values.
Teachers recognised that in many cases, pupils did not yet know what was possible, and
in that sense, responses suggested that pupil choice was more likely to increase over
time. As summarised by P108, ‘they [the pupils] don’t necessarily know what their options
are’. Teachers showed an awareness that their greater knowledge and experience
allowed them to encourage pupils to try things they may not have previously considered,
for example, P83, a guitar teacher, suggests that ‘some pupils just want to play guitar
chords. I like to show them that classical guitar has a lot to offer!’ Similarly, P241
highlights the role teachers can play in order to ‘open up their [the pupils’] horizons’. P254
highlights the fact that ‘they [the pupils] have no idea what is available’, and as P301 says,
‘often students are not aware of the possibilities open to them’. Responses suggest that
before pupils can be allowed a greater degree of choice and input, they first need to be
aware of the possible options open to them. Teachers indicated that demonstrating these
possibilities was part of their role, and that by virtue of their greater knowledge,
experience and expertise, a role they were best placed to undertake.
7.2.5 Responsibility of the teacher
Responses indicate that teachers felt that without retaining a degree of input into the
lesson content, they would not be responsible educators. Teachers felt that part of their
responsibility was to ensure that pupils were equipped with the ‘necessary’ skills needed
for the future. Finney (2016, p. 154) argues that this need for pupils to be trained for what
he refers to as the ‘workplace’, has become the role of education in schools, saying:
176
‘schools provide their students with ‘knowledge packages’ that as a minimum will
enable them to function in the workplace and beyond in order to gain feelings of
self-worth and social prestige.’
It is possible that instrumental teachers experience similar feelings, that they must ensure
their pupils are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge in order to function
either in higher education institutional systems such as conservatoires, or, further down
the line, as professional musicians. Whilst teachers sought to meet the needs of individual
pupils, some felt it would be irresponsible to allow pupils free rein. As indicated by P37,
‘it’s about respect. I may not want to play their game all the time and [it’s] not as if [I’m]
their friend I am a pedagogue’.
Responses suggest that teachers often recognised the need for pupils to be able to work
independently. P37 also makes the point that a teacher will not be around forever, and
that pupils need to develop independent learning skills, saying ‘I am not that important, or
at least I shouldn’t be because what will they [the pupils] do when I’m not around?’ This
links to the metacognitive principles of developing the skills of effective learning by
understanding the demands of the music and thus, employing effective strategies to learn
it (Colombo & Antonietti, 2017).
P34 suggests that teenagers, in particular, can be ‘canny as to what they think they want
to learn’; but that as a teacher, ‘you are responsible, as in any form of teaching, to cover
everything that is needed’. Indeed, some teachers, for example, P71, felt that not to take
responsibility for covering certain areas of learning did pupils a disservice in the longer
term, despite the desire to develop pupils’ own skills and interests, saying:
‘there are some aspects which need to be taught in order to make progress. I have
a very creative pupil who wants to make things up all the time. This is great but his
fingering is really undisciplined and it would be wrong of me not to spend time on
trying to improve it so that he will be better equipped to play his creations, and give
him greater scope in playing faster and more complex pieces.’
Also closely related to lifelong learning, responses suggest that teachers were also
concerned for the safety and wellbeing of pupils, P288 saying:
‘Some of my students work in dangerous voice genres (heavy metal/scream/belt)
so we work to what is healthy for them at the time and if it is too much I guide them
away.’
In my phase one interviews (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.5), Participant A also spoke of a
similar need to be responsible for the health of her pupils, saying:
177
‘I think there’s, there is a level of care that you need to take…the only time that I
would refuse to do something is if I thought it was going to be harmful for them.’
P96 suggests that too much pupil input could potentially affect the quality of the lessons,
saying, ‘it does depend on the student, but eventually the amount of content will dilute its
quality’. This links closely to the teachers’ need to remain professional, as highlighted by
P136 who says pupil input is limited:
‘Because I follow a balanced curriculum to ensure progress. A student may choose
to play on an iPad all lesson, every lesson, but I wouldn’t be able to draw all
learning objectives out if this were the case and wouldn’t be doing my job as a
professional tutor.’
Similarly, P225 alludes to the limitation of pupil input, saying:
‘I will spend a fair amount of time on their chosen pieces but wouldn’t want them to
set the agenda for too long if I don’t feel the piece adds value from a technical or
artistic point of view. I try to balance what they want with [what] they need so they
are getting immediate satisfaction but are also willing to work at something which
is “good”.’
Responses suggest, as highlighted in Chapter 5 (section 5.6.5), teachers feel a
responsibility towards their pupils. This feeling of responsibility is often used as a reason
to limit pupil input. In some cases, it is so pupils are equipped with ‘necessary’ skills for
the future, and in others, it is to protect their health and wellbeing. Whilst some responses
suggest a desire to balance these various demands, teachers feel there are certain things
which need to be covered, and for which they are ultimately responsible for teaching.
7.2.6 There is a need for progress to be made
The progression of lessons and the sense of the learning and teaching moving forward
was highlighted by a number of respondents, P20 saying ‘I think it is important to steer a
pupil in a direction which is progressive’. P22 highlights the need for progression as one of
the primary reasons for restricting pupil input, saying:
‘Students don’t necessarily see the forward momentum necessary for a true
progression in learning – tricky areas in pieces, problems with nerves, pressures
on time for practice all mean that I have to press on gently which wouldn’t always
be a comfortable situation for them.’
Similarly, P30 highlights the need for private teachers to ensure their students are ‘making
incremental progress’, and P34 writes that whatever happens in the lesson, ‘improvement
must always be there in the end’. P48 suggests that progression can only be made if they,
as the teacher, ‘reserve the right to hold the upper hand’. Similarly, P203 writes that ‘the
178
pupil will not have their eye on the bigger picture in terms of progress over a period of
time. This is the domain of the teacher’, and as P206 says, ‘they [the pupils] cannot
always see the route to get to where they want to be, so I would not be totally hands off’.
P165 goes as far as to suggest that pupil input can ‘hinder learning’, going on to say, ‘I
would struggle to teach a student who refused to play scales or technical exercises’,
indicating that progress would be limited. Likewise, P286 says ‘if the child runs the whole
lesson, it can detract from the overall plan of their progress’ and P324 writes that although
they are open to adapting their lessons, they do not want pupils to ‘derail their progress
too much’. P290 says ‘at the end of the day, pupils are there to develop, learn and
progress so [I] have to ensure this happens’. Likewise, P331 highlights a potential
problem in which pupils ‘could be bringing a new piece each week without getting
anywhere, so I would insist that we get to the end of something’.
Despite this, a number of responses suggest teachers were not averse to pupil input and
indeed, recognised its value, P372 saying ‘if the pupil needs to have some input, we
should let them have this’. However, they go on to say that any input ‘should never be to
the detriment of the lesson’. Similarly, P441 says that if a pupil’s input is ‘detrimental to
their progress’ they ‘will not pursue it’. In contrast to Bruner’s (1960) notion of ‘spiral
learning’ (see Chapter 4, section 4.3.4), these responses suggest that progress is
predominantly seen as something linear and that pupils are encouraged to keep moving
forward, rather than necessarily stepping sideways or even backwards. Emphasis is
placed on the acquisition of increasingly more complex skills.
Closely related to the sense of the learning moving forward, P141 highlights the potential
for students to remain in their comfort zone without the input of a teacher, saying ‘most
pupils like to remain in their comfort zone and sing songs they already know! I want to
push them and allow them to be the best singers and performers they can be’. Similarly,
P264 says ‘pupils often want to focus on what comes naturally. This can limit well-
roundedness and growth’. As P333 says, ‘there has to be a certain amount of structure
and some [pupils] would never push themselves if they were allowed to “run” the lesson’.
P347 says ‘sometimes students only bring things that they feel comfortable with: it’s still
my job as a teacher to help them improve by pushing them out of their comfort zone’.
In response to this, teachers felt it was important that pupils were challenged, P272
saying, ‘the danger in letting them have too much control is that then they may stop
listening to your input or suggestions. Other students have, in the past, wanted to skip
certain pieces because they were “too hard” when in reality, they were just afraid to try’.
P293 summarises this point, saying:
179
‘A good teacher will encourage a pupil to try new things they normally wouldn’t go
for – if a pupil is left to their own devices they often will go with what they know and
not explore new territory.’
Teachers demonstrated an awareness that often, in order for progress to be made, pupils
need to move beyond their comfort zones. Whilst this links with Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986)
notion of ZPD, previous research (Küpers et al., 2015) has indicated in connection to
instrumental teaching, that the ability to push these boundaries requires effort on the part
of the pupil and teacher: it is a joint enterprise. Responses here suggest that teachers are
responsible for pushing these boundaries.
Whilst survey responses predominantly suggest that teachers felt responsible for
progress, it was also noted that, as found in previous research (Carey et al., 2013;
Johansson, 2013), pupil ownership can have a positive effect. For example, P93 writes ‘I
think that there should be a large degree of student input to keep progress moving’, and
P345, ‘the more ownership the better’. Overall, responses suggested that in order for
progress to be made, pupil input was necessarily limited, indicating progress was made
predominantly as a result of the teacher.
7.2.7 Pupil input may be restricted because of age and/or level of ability
A number of responses suggested that pupil input may be restricted dependent on the
age and/or level of the pupil being taught. Teachers demonstrated an awareness that
young children, in particular, were of concern: P4 writes ‘I encourage input from pupils but
some younger children need to be kept on track in order to cover the content of the lesson
(they may be distracted and make irrelevant input!)’, and P348 writes ‘with very young
children sometimes if I give them too much autonomy the lesson can become irrelevant to
the learning they need’. Similarly, P216 writes that ‘with children, there needs to be a
boundary between catering to the pupils’ individual interests and having fun whilst still
developing’.
Overall, responses suggest that children in particular required greater teacher input, P201
saying that without this:
‘[the children] won’t shut up just to cover the fact they haven’t had the flute out of
its box since the last lesson…Younger children rarely get involved [and] just
accept how I teach. Sadly older children going through the appalling current
education system are poor independent thinkers and rarely take any initiative at
all.’
It is worth noting that as a researcher, I made the ethical decision to remove the first few
words of this quote, as it was disturbing to see children referred to in such language.
180
Although respondents were asked not to refer to individuals in any way which might
identify them, their responses are nevertheless representing their pupils.
The diminishing focus on independent thinking in wider education has been previously
cited as problematic for instrumental learning (Mackworth-Young, 1990b); however, it may
be the case in this instance, that as found in previous research (Gooding & Standley,
2011), the teacher might be applying a pedagogy that is not age-appropriate.
P20 highlights that with their older students (e.g. 12 and 13-year-olds) they can be very
indecisive when offered options, and ‘really want me to steer them’. Previous research
(Gooding & Standley, 2011) found that adolescents are particularly self-conscious, and
thus, this seems understandable. Indeed, as P302 says, ‘for some students “input” is
terrifying, so I will deliberately restrict it’. This suggests that whilst teachers may offer
input, not all pupils respond positively to that. Indeed, previous research (Burwell, 2013,
2016b) found that there are instances where the pupil seeks the authority of the teacher.
In addition to age, the level of a pupil was also cited as having an impact on input, P87
saying ‘my pupils are beginners and do not yet have enough knowledge to put in a large
amount of input’. Similarly, in relation to age and level of pupil, P91 says ‘I expect
conservatoire level pupils should have more of a say…but even then there is a set
repertoire every violinist should learn’. Given the wide variance in responses regarding
repertoire choice, it seems unlikely there would ever be any universally agreed definition
of a ‘set repertoire’. Bernstein (1975) suggests that by the time a pupil reaches
conservatoire-level study, their membership category and subject loyalty will have been
firmly established. If a set repertoire is required, offering choice at conservatoire level may
be too late. Related to the increasing level of a pupil’s ability, P275 asserts that ‘until they
[the pupils] reach an advanced level, they do not have the experience to judge what is
necessary’. This suggests that in the earlier stages of learning, the teacher undertakes the
role in judging what is ‘necessary’.
In contrast, some respondents suggested that adults require a different approach, P131
saying ‘adult students should be “collaborating” with their mentors/teachers and not
merely receiving instruction from them’. P362 writes:
‘Adults generally know more what they want and I think it’s my job to help them get
there. Some adults are not interested in learning about harmonic structure for
instance, or keys, or chords – if they just want to play I can help them improve.’
That said, P248 writes ‘[the] pupil only sees their bit of the overall picture…Even with
adults I strive to provide a broad musical education’. P282 felt that ‘if the student is paying
181
for their own lesson (i.e. is an adult), then they can completely set the lesson content if
they choose to’. Overall, responses suggest younger and novice pupils are afforded less
input, and this is likely to increase as they get older and their ability increases. Adults
appear to be afforded greater input; however, it is not possible to tell how much input an
adult beginner might be afforded in contrast to a child.
7.2.8 Pupils can disrupt the lesson
Often closely linked to age and level, is the notion that without sufficient control, pupils
could go off at a tangent. The idea that pupils may disrupt, either through their behaviour,
or via what teachers perceived as calculated distraction, was something found to be
problematic. P18 writes that ‘in terms of time constraint, some pupils will deviate a lot if
not pulled back’. The perceived problem of pupils going off at a tangent was also
highlighted by P68 who writes ‘sometimes they [the pupils] talk too much and forget what
they have come for!’ Likewise, P76 concludes that ‘some of them [the pupils] mess about
too much…I have to pull them into focus more assertively’. P251 says that by restricting
pupil input, ‘they [the pupils] can’t keep interrupting’, and as P456 says, ‘if you let some of
them [the pupils] run free they will just chat the whole lesson, dance around and have
chocolate’.
Responses suggest that for lessons to be effective, boundaries had to be set, and by
consequence, the input of pupils restricted. P270 writes ‘I wouldn’t want them [the pupils]
“taking charge” of the lesson. Some young ones like to think they’re the boss! To make
progress and learn, I have to be the teacher, not them!’ Similarly, P308 simply says ‘at the
end of the day, I am in charge’, and even though P360 says ‘occasionally I will chuck the
lesson plan out of the window’, they go on to say they are ‘always in charge’. Likewise,
P393 also states ‘the teacher must always remain in charge’. Responses here suggest an
‘either-or’ scenario: either the teacher is in charge or the pupil is. In the field of community
music, Higgins (2006) has argued that it is possible to work in collaboration and
partnership, without diminishing the control of the leader or facilitator. Given this
dichotomy, further research which examined how the principles of community music might
be applied to one-to-one instrumental lessons would be beneficial.
In addition to the potential for lessons to be disrupted, distraction techniques were also
perceived to be a problem. P274 writes ‘children will often try and distract and that needs
[to be] nullified’, and as P358 states:
‘[I] have learned over the years that some students have excellent distraction
techniques which are purely to avoid doing any work and often things they bring
are not helpful or relevant or way behind their abilities at that point in time.’
182
Similarly, P373 says ‘I am teaching mainly children up to teenagers & [they] would
probably run rings round me if I gave into them all the time’.
That said, lessons going off course could be seen as a potential positive, as P18 says ‘it
can work very well, if it is genuine interest’ and similarly, P404 writes ‘sometimes a
student will take off completely with their own ideas for a whole lesson which can be
extremely liberating. Who knows where [that will] take them?’ Although there was an
awareness that there were times where lessons going off at a tangent could be beneficial,
a teacher is required in order to bring the lesson back on track, as suggested by P115
who says:
‘Well, they can go down a side street, which is fun, pleasurable, educational so
long as the teacher doesn’t lose sight of the bigger picture – so at some point the
lesson may need steering.’
Whilst responses suggest that such tangents could offer effective learning experiences,
these were not considered the norm, despite previous research (Paynter, 1992; Paynter &
Aston, 1970) valuing such activities.
Survey responses suggest that teachers felt a responsibility to teach certain concepts and
skills, and to ensure that progress was being made. Responses here suggest that pupils
could easily disrupt those actions, either intentionally or unintentionally. As P147 says, ‘to
completely have a free for all would maybe mean certain things would not be covered’ and
as P416 says, with no limit on pupil input ‘the animals may end up running the farm’. P102
writes that:
‘A lot of my younger students would just play around if I let them take control and
we would get nothing done. That’s not fair to them musically, or to their parents
financially.’
As Bernstein (1975) argued, membership categories and subject loyalty are established
early on. The national system of ensembles in the UK, such as the National Children’s
Orchestra is set up in a way which means children need to have acquired a certain level
of skill and knowledge at an early age if they wish to participate. Whilst there is a degree
of recognition that not all pupils have such aims, responses here suggest that by allowing
too much pupil input, it may ultimately make such goals unattainable.
7.2.9 Pupils may resist lesson content which is perceived as ‘unpopular’
Teachers often identified areas of learning which they deemed necessary, and as an
extension of that, were considered ‘unpopular’ with pupils. For example, P4 says ‘there
183
may be some more unpopular items such as sight-reading and scales that a pupil would
choose to miss out if given the option’ and P327 says ‘if given the option, most pupils
would avoid learning “boring” songs that may teach an important element, or learning
technical work such as scales and arpeggios’. This point was also taken up by P5 in
relation to pupil enjoyment, as they write ‘[learning] should be for enjoyment but there are
definitely things that are good for them – like scales that need doing’. P19 writes that
‘sometimes things just have to be done, and facing up to challenges should be part of a
learner’s journey’. Similarly, P307 says ‘there are certain things they [the pupils] have to
learn, like it or not’ and as P464 says, ‘sometimes you have to get them to play “medicine
music”; that which might not be exciting, but will probably make them better’. Responses
suggest overall that by affording pupils too much input, they would choose to avoid these
items which teachers recognised were ‘unpopular’ but ‘necessary’.
Although teachers recognised that some areas of learning would be unpopular, some felt
it was part of their role to make these more appealing. As P27 says, ‘sometimes we still
need to cover aspects of technique’, but that part of the teacher’s role is about ‘finding
ways around it that are interesting and varied’, and as P54 says, students will ‘generally
want to avoid certain aspects e.g. scales, therefore I balance the lesson to include what
we both want’. P127 summarises this, saying:
‘They [the pupils] may not like it, but sometimes I spend rather a lot of time
warming up or looking at technical things, but it is ultimately to make them a better
musician, so I will never skip it, even if a student finds it boring from time to time.’
Some responses suggest that pupils could be persuaded to cover the areas considered
‘unpopular’, for example, P146 says that ‘some pupils will resist what they really need to
do and need to be talked round’. In relation to that, P158 states ‘it’s important that they
[the pupils] feel that the teacher can take control if they use choice to avoid aspects of
learning that they are weak at’. Likewise, P236 responded, saying:
‘If their [the pupils’] input is helpful to their growth anything is allowed. However I
must make a judgement sometimes when what may appear to be ‘input’ is really
avoidance. (Fiddling around rather than improvising…wasting time etc).’
P80 relates this to their own learning as a student, saying that by resorting to ‘distraction
techniques to avoid the thing you think you’re likely to do bad at’, this ‘is a strong incentive
to lead lessons! There needs to be someone in charge of the stuff we don’t like!’ Similarly,
P122 writes ‘certain pupils would try to get away with insufficient technical work and this
would hamper their progress’. Once again, teachers were concerned with both what they
perceived as their professional responsibility, and with progress. Concern was expressed
that by either disruption or distraction, pupils could avoid doing things they did not want to
184
do, and by consequence, would be missing out on learning things teachers deemed
‘necessary’.
7.2.10 Lesson content may be negotiated or borne out of compromise
A number of responses suggested that whilst pupil input was limited, the content of the
lessons was borne out of negotiation, P11 saying ‘there should be learning objectives
which are negotiated across pupil and tutor, and not simply set by either’. That said, P397
states that, some areas of study were ‘non-negotiable’. P28 highlights the fact that pupil
‘input is good’; however, they go on to say that ‘input to the point of the pupil controlling
the lesson content and direction isn’t constructive’. P55 suggests a compromise whereby
they:
‘strive to be as open as I can be to any ideas from the students, and love to
explore the vast world of music with them. I do not like to close off options for them
but know that things need to be level appropriate – for example, if they come with
a new piece which is far too challenging, I will simplify it down with them and we
will come with something pleasing but easier together.’
The idea of compromise was also highlighted by P207, who said:
‘If I think the piece they want to do is too hard I might suggest something else or
come up with a compromise. Or if they’re spending too much time on something
that isn’t pushing them I would make some ‘strong’ suggestions. Sometimes I just
make [the] executive decision and they’re usually happy to go along with that.’
Some responses suggested an awareness of the need for collaboration, P56 saying ‘I try
to be somewhat collaborative, but I am running the lesson, and I know how to get their
voices to develop. I can be very flexible, but it’s a delicate balance’. The idea of achieving
a balance was also highlighted by P72 who says, ‘I believe it should be a balance
between what I think would help them improve and what they want to try’. Likewise, P151
says ‘it is a 2 way thing and I am being paid by the pupil, but there are times when it is
[necessary] to diplomatically say that the version is too tricky and may cause
dissatisfaction’. P262 says ‘I find that it works best when there is a balance. They [the
pupils] might have to do some things they don’t enjoy…I will insist, explain, make it more
appealing, but it does not always work’. P486 also recognises that it is a two-way process,
saying ‘not only [are] the students [learning] from the teachers, but also the teachers learn
from their students. [They] should be given enough freedom to experiment, improvise and
[learn] by their [own] experience instead of direct instructions’. This reflects Freire’s (1996)
desire to develop a learning environment in which student and teacher are both learning
simultaneously, and also highlights Paynter and Aston’s (1970) emphasis on learning
through exploration.
185
Some responses suggest that whilst teachers placed limitations on pupil input, this did not
mean it was not welcomed, P142 saying ‘I love it when pupils bring their own carrot!’.
However, as highlighted in previous research (Abramo, 2014), P230 summarises the
tension between pupil input and teacher control, saying:
‘The student is allowed to have projects or goals or dreams. The teacher’s role is
to provide the student with the skills/technique/knowledge to achieve them. But the
student must trust that the teacher will give that knowledge in a sequence which
will lead to excellence and success. It is the teacher’s job to teach and the
student’s job to learn.’
If a teacher’s job is to teach, this suggests knowledge is seen as something which is
passed on, rather, than, as found in previous research (Daugherty, 1996; Dewey, 2005;
Elliott, 1993; Paynter, 1992; Paynter & Aston, 1970) something which is created through
the practice of music-making and experience. Just as Freire (1996) argued against in his
reference to ‘banking education’, Paynter and Aston (1970) also cautioned against
knowledge in music education being seen as fixed parcels to be passed on to pupils.
Overall, responses suggest that whilst the value of collaboration was recognised, there
was still a limit to be placed on pupil input.
7.2.11 Lessons need a clear structure
A number of responses suggested that lessons needed some structure in order for
effective teaching and learning to take place, for example, P15 suggests this would be
impossible ‘if a pupil wished to learn only from badly-arranged pop music’. Similarly, P296
says ‘a lesson needs structure and a goal’. P160 says ‘give full control to the pupil and
you risk losing sight of goals and structures’, and P194 says ‘lessons need to be
structured – too much input can distract too far from this’. P317 likens it to a road, saying:
‘As a teacher you need to have a journey…a goal to be met – a target – you will
have mapped that out to an extent and while travelling down a side road is
interesting, you need to watch that it doesn’t become the main route.’
The idea of balance is once again brought to the fore, P328 saying ‘there has to be a
structure to the lesson if you are going to give pupils balanced instrumental teaching’.
Overall, P302 says that regardless of pupil input ‘the basic framework remains in tact’.
Speaking previously of the activities involved in planning and preparing lessons (see
Chapter 5, section 5.7.1), responses here suggest that teachers value a degree of
structure to their lessons. Too much pupil input was often seen as disrupting those plans.
186
7.3 There is no limit to pupil input
In contrast, 25.9% of respondents felt there was no limit to pupil input, though unlike
those who felt there was a limit, reasons given here were more limited. Responses fell into
three categories:
7.3.1 The teacher needs to trust the pupil;
7.3.2 It is the pupil’s lesson;
7.3.3 Pupil input leads to greater engagement.
These are discussed individually below.
7.3.1 The teacher needs to trust the pupil
Responses suggested that an element of trust was involved in allowing pupils limitless
input. P6 says that there was no limit to pupil input because ‘it’s all learning – and my role
is to TRUST the pupil [respondent’s capitalisation]’. P399 says similar, albeit in relation to
advanced pupils, saying ‘I think that teachers need to trust them [the pupils]’. These
responses suggest a degree of collaboration, and an awareness on the part of some
teachers that learning can also take place through engaging in music experiences. As
Dewey suggested (Väkevä, 2012), education is not about controlling knowledge, but
about fertilising experience.
7.3.2 Pupils possess ownership of the lesson
A number of teachers who responded to this question highlighted the fact that the lesson
belonged to the pupil, and therefore they had no place in restricting the input they had.
For example, P29 writes ‘if a pupil wants to go in a different direction to the way the lesson
is going, that’s fine with me’. Similarly, P86 says ‘I am always listening to the student so I
am sure to be giving them what they want’. Likewise, P178 says ‘it is their time and no
one [else’s]’, with P202 simply writing, ‘it’s their lesson!’ Teachers were keen that their
lessons should meet the needs of individual pupils, P218 highlighting there is no limit to
pupil input as ‘the lesson is about the student and in this setting there is less to no box
ticking – it is bespoke’. In contrast to the responses suggesting teachers valued a fairly set
structure (see Chapter 7, section 7.2.11), P238 says ‘every lesson is unique…no set
structure’.
As was highlighted in Chapter 3 (section 3.2.7), some teachers defined the lesson in
terms of a business transaction in which the pupil (or parent) is paying for the teacher to
187
provide a service. P36 highlights this, saying ‘for pupils to remain engaged they have [to]
have that freedom to contribute to their lessons [especially] if they are paying for it’, and
P43 says pupil ‘ownership is important’.
Some responses suggested that by limiting pupil input teachers could lose pupils (P150),
and similarly, P284 says ‘they are the ones paying for their lessons, they would just
choose to go elsewhere if they didn’t enjoy lessons’. P401 says ‘at the end of the day, the
pupil (and their parents) are the client, so if they’re not happy I will change until they are
happy’. P32 writes that ‘there shouldn’t be a limit as it is good to go with the students
ideas’, although they go on to say that these ideas ‘might not coincide with what parents
are looking for’. The issue of parental control is also highlighted by P61, who although
stating that there is no limit to pupil input, highlights the fact that ‘they, or their parents are
paying’.
As discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.5.4), responses here suggest also that some
teachers view themselves as a mentor rather than a teacher, and this was something they
saw was beneficial in increasing pupil ownership of the lesson. P137 writes that there is
no restriction on pupil input because they are ‘mentoring an artist’, and similarly, P350
says ‘on rare occasions they might just need a sounding board. They may have made
their technical and artistic choices before arriving at the studio’.
Also highlighted was the way in which teachers felt it was their job to work with what they
were presented with, P89 saying there is no restriction on pupil input ‘because one can
usually make something musically meaningful out of a “sow’s ear” if one is inventive
enough’. P189 says ‘I am at their service. If there’s something they want to work on, it’s
my job to help them with that’. P435 says that there is no limit to pupil input ‘so long as
they are respectful’. Overall, responses here indicate that some teachers see their pupils
as ‘owners’ of the lesson, and by consequence felt they had no place to limit what those
lessons could include.
7.3.3 Pupil input leads to better engagement
Just as was the case with pupils having ownership of the lesson, a number of responses
highlighted the way in which a greater degree of pupil input can lead to better
engagement in the lessons. P81 highlights the implication of restricting pupil input, saying
that without such a restriction ‘the pupil is fully engaged in learning’ and ‘they will progress
more quickly and easily’. Similarly, P128 says ‘the pupil needs to be engaged in what they
are doing or they won’t practise effectively’. P303 writes ‘the more input they have the
more they own the work. They do more and achieve more’, and P419 states ‘sometimes it
188
is important to allow discussion to develop to understand how they are engaging with the
music or learning’. The benefits of student-ownership in instrumental lessons have been
previously cited (Carey et al., 2013).
In their responses, teachers exhibited a desire to trust their pupils as key players in the
learning process. They also highlighted the benefits of students taking ownership of their
learning; however, some teachers also felt limited in what they could control by virtue of
the lesson being a business transaction. Responses also suggest that teachers who did
not see a limit to pupil input found it harder to articulate their reasons for this than those
who did.
7.4 Contradictions
Following discussion of those responses from teachers who indicated there was either a
limit or no limit to pupil input, in this final section, I identified five further categories which
demonstrate a series of contradictions. They all relate to responses from teachers who
indicated there was no limit to pupil input; however, all highlight the potential for limitations
to be reached or imposed under certain circumstances:
7.4.1 No limit to pupil input until the teacher feels a limit has been reached;
7.4.2 No limit to pupil input, but teachers must manage that input;
7.4.3 No limit to pupil input, but teachers do not have to take note of that input;
7.4.4 Teachers can manipulate pupil input;
7.4.5 No limit to pupil input, but external factors could impose restrictions.
I will discuss each of these in turn below.
7.4.1 No limit to pupil input until the teacher feels a limit has been reached
Firstly, a number of teachers indicated that there is no limit to pupil input, until a certain
point is reached, for example, P6 suggests that there is no limit to pupil input; however, ‘if
they’re waaaaay off [on a] tangent…that is a different matter’. Similarly, P233 also
indicates there is no limit to pupil input, saying ‘they [the pupils] can learn well when they
approach their learning in the way that suits them; however, they go on to say ‘once we
have chosen what to learn and how to learn it, I would gently bring them back on track if
they start deviating too much’.
Similarly, P263 suggests there is no limit to pupil input, saying ‘if they [the pupils] keep
bringing their own material, I’m happy to work with it’; however, as a teacher, they might
189
reach a point where they ‘want to add to or supplement’. P373 also indicates there is no
limit to pupil input, though inevitably a limit is reached, otherwise ‘they [the pupils] would
probably run rings round me’.
Some responses suggest that teachers see pupil input as an ‘added extra’, but which
cannot alone dictate the content of the lesson, for example, P200 says it is ‘great to have
from time to time but it can’t become the main part of teaching’. P267 says ‘I will happily
go along with it for one tune – but the next one should stretch their ability’. In that sense,
whilst some teachers do not believe there to be a limit to pupil input, they demonstrate a
range of circumstances under which a limit may be reached. This suggests that as found
by Argyris and Schön (1974), the teachers’ espoused theory does not match their theory-
in-use; in other words, that which teachers state they believe, is not enacted upon in
practice.
7.4.2 No limit to pupil input, but teachers must manage that input
Some responses indicate that although pupil input was welcomed, teachers still felt some
responsibility to, in the words of P16, ‘manage the way we use that input’. As discussed in
Chapters 5 (section 5.6.5) and 7 (section 7.2.5), responses here also suggest that
teachers feel a professional responsibility towards their pupils, and that there are
occasions where they feel obliged to advise against doing something if they did not think it
was ‘right’. For example, P113 states there is no limit to pupil input, but says:
‘Obviously I’d have to advise them of the downsides of this approach – and even
advise they find a different teacher if I don’t feel I can do any effective teaching
within their requirements. Hopefully if they started making progress they would
begin to see the benefits of incorporating some other ideas and activities.’
Similarly, P177 says there is no limit to pupil input; however, ‘if I think their suggestions
are unsuitable we discuss why and work from there’. Likewise, P268 appears to suggest
that although pupil input is unlimited, there has to be some teacher-defined value in their
suggestion: ‘if they [the pupils] have genuinely good ideas I will take them on board
entirely’. P325 responds, saying ‘I will try their suggestions even if I don’t think they are
suitable, as [once] tried, the student will most probably dismiss it’. These responses
suggest once again, a mismatch between teachers’ espoused theory and theory-in-use.
As outlined in Chapter 7 (section 7.4.1) above, responses indicate that teachers have a
series of governing variables which they wish to keep within an acceptable range. For
example, here, P113 identifies the ability to teach effectively as one of their governing
variables, with P325 retaining the ability to judge what is ‘good’ as one of theirs.
190
7.4.3 No limit to pupil input, but teachers do not have to take note of that input
A number of responses suggested that whilst teachers appeared to offer unlimited
freedom in terms of pupil input, they did not necessarily feel obliged to take note of that
input. P92 says ‘they [the pupils] can always have input, but that’s not necessarily the
same as outcome’. Similarly, P130 says:
‘Generally I want pupils to let me know their honest interests, thoughts and
opinions, but that can’t directly dictate lesson content – my role is to receive their
ideas and firm them into some kind of coherent learning process.’
P208 writes that ‘a pupil can ask anything at any time. I think that kind of interaction is a
good thing’. This and previous responses suggest that whilst teachers are often receptive
to pupil’s ideas and input, they will ultimately have the final say. Whilst teachers say there
is no limit to pupil input, the governing variable displayed here might be the right to veto
any pupil input.
7.4.4 Teacher can manipulate pupil input
Some responses suggested teachers had developed means by which they could give
their pupils the illusion of choice. As P42 says, ‘I try to teach to their [the pupils’] needs
and desires. I have also learned clever ways to get them to choose what I want them to
play’. Similarly, P462 says there is no limit to pupil input, but ‘you can incorporate your
own goals into the things they choose to do – you just have to be clever about it’. P95
writes that ‘students should feel they have an input in their lessons’, although it is not
possible to tell whether a student being made to feel they have input is the same as
actually having input. The ability to manipulate pupil input in a way which appears to serve
the needs of the teachers suggests a relationship in which the teacher is the dominant,
possibly even powerful figure. This is something which concerned both Foucault (1979)
and Freire (1996) as discussed in Chapter 4 (sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3).
7.4.5 No limit to pupil input, but external factors could impose restrictions
Whilst some teachers indicated there was no limit to pupil input, P32 highlights the
potential for external factors to influence the lesson content, saying ‘there shouldn’t be a
limit as it is good to go with the [students’] ideas, however, these might not coincide with
what parents are looking for’. Also mentioned were factors which mean it is simply not
possible to accommodate a pupil’s request, for example, as P184 says, ‘if they want to
play repertoire that doesn’t exist for the instrument’.
191
Responses suggested that whilst teachers were aware of the idea of pupil input, it was not
necessarily something they felt comfortable with. P130 sums this up:
‘I hope that I don't ever ignore a student's idea, but will often explain why we can't
follow that up right now, but here are the things we're working on that are related
and will get there in the end. Or if their input is something like 'can I have a go on
the harp?' then my response is just 'yeah once we've got sorted with the piano
stuff we're meant to be working on' - and then explain how harp relates to piano,
play some of the same tunes, get them back on the piano before the end of the
lesson... A crude example, but I think it's important to relate their
interests/suggestions back to what you're 'meant' to be learning - and make sure
that it's fun - so that they trust you to guide what happens, that they won't feel
uncomfortable and they'll enjoy whatever happens. Writing that has made me
realise how easy it must be for teachers to abuse that trust.’
Other teachers also found the question thought-provoking, P344 saying:
‘before reading through these research questions, it hadn’t occurred to me to
consider pupil input. My model of teaching is roughly based on my own experience
of organ & piano lessons, and they were probably quite old fashioned.’
Likewise, P470 writes:
‘again this has made me think! With certain pupils it would be interesting to ask
them to take charge of one lesson and see what they did. This may have a positive
impact on how they view and use their practice time too.’
Whilst there were varying views, and indeed, contradictions, overall, responses suggest
that these were issues teachers were aware of, even if they did not know how best to
manage them. As P157 says, ‘I don’t like to squash any input or ideas that a pupil has, &
try to encourage & help them with them as much as possible’, and similarly P313 says
‘questions should be taken seriously’.
7.5 Summary
Overall, the majority of teachers felt there was a limit to pupil input. They cited a range of
reasons why this was, including: the need to teach certain things which were non-
negotiable; the influence of external factors such as exams; the need to judge the
suitability of repertoire learnt; professional responsibility; and the effect of age and ability
level. Those who indicated they believed there to be no limit to pupil input, often went on
to highlight circumstances in which a limit may be reached, suggesting a mismatch
between their espoused theory and theory-in-use. In particular, they highlighted a number
of variables which they felt should be kept within an acceptable range, including: the
ability to teach effectively; the need to judge the suitability of materials; and the right to
192
veto any pupil’s suggestions. In Chapter 8, I will be discussing these themes, and those
cited earlier in the thesis, in relation to my research questions.
193
8. Discussion
8.1 Introduction
Having considered the data gathered both in the interviews and through the survey,
responses suggest that private teachers are highly committed to the work they do. They
are committed to their pupils’ development as musicians, and taking part in a research
study such as this appeared to offer them an opportunity to think reflectively about the
work they undertake and to articulate something of what they do. In this chapter, I will
consider the outcomes in relation to my research questions:
1. What constitutes valid knowledge in the context of private instrumental teaching?
2. How is the private instrumental teaching curriculum designed in order to facilitate
the construction and realisation of valid knowledge?
3. How does the autonomy of the private instrumental curriculum support and
challenge the quality of teaching and learning?
Having undertaken the research, it is clear now, how inextricably linked these questions
are. In this chapter, I shall begin by looking at how teachers validate the knowledge which
forms the basis of their curricula, before looking at how they facilitate the construction of
that knowledge in practice.
There is much in my data which underpins the notion of the one-to-one private lesson
being a community of practice. Wenger (2008) developed his ideas surrounding the
community of practice, in part, as a result of previous research into apprenticeships (Lave
& Wenger, 1991). Apprenticeship is a fundamental feature of communities of practice, and
thus, the link with the private lesson being historically associated with a master-apprentice
model of teaching is noteworthy (Creech, 2010).
Teachers’ responses suggested that they were keen to share their experience, knowledge
and skills with their pupils in their role as a more experienced ‘other’ (see Chapter 5,
section 5.4.8). Consistently demonstrated was an emphasis on Western Classical Music,
thus situating private teachers within a developed cultural practice. Over time, data
suggest that teachers had developed resources and approaches which they shared with
their pupils. In some cases, this ‘shared repertoire’ had been developed over a
considerable time, during which pupils will have both joined and left the community of
practice (the teacher’s ‘studio’). The development of popular and effective resources for
194
use in the private lesson, was something identified by Jorgensen (1986) who suggested
these were repeatedly used and shared over time with different pupils.
In the private lesson, both teacher and pupil are working together, in joint enterprise,
towards a common goal, that is, learning an instrument. This common goal is a
fundamental feature of an effective community of practice. Responses suggest that
private teachers were keen that the content of the lesson and the way it was taught came
about as a result of discussion, collaboration and listening to pupils (see Chapter 6,
sections 6.3.6, 6.3.7 and 6.3.8). Teachers also demonstrated a desire to enable pupils to
fulfil their ambitions, goals and potential (see Chapter 5, section 5.5.6). Responses in both
the interviews and survey suggest an awareness that pupils’ identities change over time,
and therefore, there was a need to ensure pupils were ‘suitably’ equipped for the future
(see Chapter 5, section 5.5.5.). This highlights the notion of a perpetually evolving
community. Data suggest that private teachers often appreciated the fact that their pupils
will eventually wish to be effective musicians and learners once they ceased taking
lessons. Above all, data suggest that teachers and pupils are engaged in joint activities in
which they share a mutual interest and commitment.
8.2 How do teachers validate knowledge?
From my research, much of what can be explored in terms of knowledge, and thus, by
consequence, control, links back to the ‘system’. Of course, the system, as an object,
does not exist, yet it is through teachers’ own experiences and understanding that they
construct, perpetuate and, as responses often suggested, seek to conform to this system.
Private teachers themselves are inextricably linked to this system through a variety of
different layers. Engagement with these layers may exist through the teaching they
received, the institutions at which they studied, the examination boards they use, the
training and CPD they undertake and through the repertoire they themselves value. Figure
9 illustrates how some of these layers not only impact upon the private instrumental
lesson, but also overlap with each other. Of particular interest, is the way in which the data
suggest that it is through these layers of engagement and experience that private
teachers validate knowledge, and by consequence, construct their curricula.
195
Figure 9: Layers of control and their impact upon the private instrumental lesson.
Previous research (Haddon, 2009; Nerland, 2007) found that what private teachers teach
is primarily based on their own experiences as learners. Indeed, teachers wrote of their
desire to transmit to their pupils, that which they had been taught, and often viewed this
opportunity as a privilege (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.5). In my data, some teachers
highlighted the way in which, in this respect, they felt compelled to nurture their pupils
(see Chapter 5, section 5.5.8). My interviews suggested that private teachers often felt a
degree of loyalty and gratitude to their own teachers (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.3).
Participant C talked of her desire to carry on the work of her own teacher, Participant B
suggesting that if she could be only 10% as good a teacher as her own, she would be
satisfied. Similarly, Participant A talked of the value of their own teacher acting as a
mentor (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.9). Through these examples, it is possible to see the
way in which the pupils link back, through their own teachers, and their teachers’
teachers, to the institutions at which those teachers studied and to which they feel an
affiliation.
These layers, as illustrated in Figure 13, not only impact upon the private instrumental
lesson, but are also inherently interwoven with each other. Six distinct ways in which
teachers validate knowledge emerged from the data. Whilst these are discussed
individually below, they are intrinsically linked to each other.
Private
instrumental
lesson
Teachers'
received
teaching
Institutions
where
teachers
studied
Teachers'
own CPD
Exam boards
Parents
Schools
196
8.2.1 Required competence at entry points into the system
Teachers often have memories, both good and bad, of their own teachers and learning
experiences. Their experience as learners shapes their teaching now, and the sense of
loyalty and gratitude displayed towards their own teachers echoes this. Similarly,
teachers’ loyalty to and experiences at the institutions at which they studied has been
highlighted in previous research (Jorgensen, 1986) as impacting on their teaching.
Previous research (Persson, 1994, p. 226) has recognised the way in which a system of
accepted norms can become the focus of teaching:
‘above anything else the target of teaching must be to prepare students for a
professional world, where compliance to norms and standards must be total if any
success is to be reaped.’
In the UK, musical opportunities tend to favour the young; often, the younger the better.
National ensembles, frequently seen as an effective precursor to a career in music, are
built around such a system and require pupils to acquire a certain level of skill and
knowledge at an early age. For example, the National Children’s Orchestra accepts
players from the age of seven, and even in the Under-10 Orchestra, it is expected that
some children will already be playing at Grade 8 level (National Children’s Orchestras of
Great Britain, 2018b). Indeed, the ensemble boasts three winners of the prestigious BBC
Young Musician Competition amongst its alumni (National Children’s Orchestras of Great
Britain, 2018a). Similarly, the National Youth Orchestra accepts players from the age of 13
who are already expected to be playing at Grade 8 distinction level and beyond (National
Youth Orchestras of Great Britain, 2018).
Similar requirements can be found when learners apply to study at a conservatoire or
other higher education institutions, normally at the age of 18. Grade 8, often at distinction
level, is usually the minimum performance standard required on application. There are,
however, certainly cases where performers far-exceed that standard, having already
acquired performance diplomas accredited at levels above and beyond the courses for
which they are applying. This suggests that for anyone wishing to study or pursue a
career in music, certainly as a classical performer or orchestral musician, there are points
in time where certain levels of skill and knowledge are required in order to progress
through the system. It should be noted that there are numerous different paths, but many
private teachers themselves will have travelled via similar classical-based routes and will
be aware of such entry points to the system.
One feature of an effective community of practice is that of orientating newcomers into the
community, and just as new members join, and others leave, so the community evolves
197
(Creech & Gaunt, 2012; Wenger, 2008). Data suggest that teachers are aware of the
need for pupils to meet certain standards at certain times, as perhaps they had to as
learners, and this can be used as a way by which they validate their curricula. In other
words, certain things need to be learnt as to conform to the ‘norms and standards’
mentioned by Persson (1994, p. 226) above. This suggests that teachers often gear their
curricula towards an outcome which presupposes that a career in music is the ultimate
goal of children’s learning, such as was highlighted in previous research (Burwell, 2013;
Cope, 1998; Sloboda, 2008). Analysis of the responses indicates that teachers’ curricula
can be designed in such a way as to orientate pupils into the community, in other words
the system and that which is taught facilitates that membership. This is problematic if, as
identified in a previous study (McCarthy, 2017), many of the pupils being taught are not
would-be professionals.
8.2.2 The need for foundation skills and knowledge
Closely related to Chapter 8 (section 8.2.1) above, data gathered through my research
study suggests that private teachers are concerned that pupils should acquire a
foundation set of skills and knowledge, something which was often seen as non-
negotiable (see Chapter 7, section 7.2.1). Whilst there is no agreed definition of what
these foundation skills should be, responses suggested these were nevertheless
‘necessary’. Responses suggest these skills generally align with those required by
examination boards for graded exams, and with that in mind, as has been found
previously (Jorgensen, 1986), it is on these syllabi that private teachers often base their
curricula.
Responses indicate that teachers felt responsible for teaching these foundation skills
regardless of the pupils’ thoughts, ideas or feelings, and teachers saw these skills as both
‘fundamental’ and ‘basic’; for example, P234 writes, ‘they get no choice in opting out of
basics’. As discussed in Chapter 8 (section 8.2.1) above, if pupils are to conform to a
system, then certain levels of competency are required at certain points in time, and as
exemplified in exam syllabi, these tend to be compartmentalised into particular tests with
fixed outcomes, for example, performance, aural, technical ability and sight-reading.
From the examples given above, responses indicate that teachers see knowledge as
something which is ‘fixed’. Some responses suggest that the teacher and pupil have very
distinct roles, for example P230 wrote, ‘it is the teacher’s job to teach and the student’s job
to learn’. By compartmentalising knowledge in this way, responses suggest that teachers
see knowledge as fixed ‘parcels’ of information which are to be imparted to their pupils.
Therefore, such a view of knowledge, and thus, transmission of that knowledge, favours a
198
behaviourist approach to learning (Skinner, 1936), in other words, a teacher teaches, and
a pupil acquires (Sink, 2002). Behaviourist theories of learning have been shown to be
both teacher-centred and teacher-dominated (Sink, 2002), something at odds with a
community of practice in which no one party dominates. The desire to transmit knowledge
in this way also aligns with Freire’s (1996) concept of ‘banking education’, in which
learners operate as empty receptacles waiting to be filled with such knowledge. As argued
by Foucault (1979), students become objects of information, rather than of
communication. Paynter and Aston (1970) also cautioned against such an approach to
teaching. If the intention is that pupils will need to conform to a system of standards and
norms, responses suggest that overall, teachers teach in a way which covers those areas
of skill and knowledge required for such membership.
8.2.3 The dominance of Western Classical Music and technique
My research suggests that teachers have strong views about what music should and
should not be taught. Teachers overwhelmingly believed that Western Classical Music
should be the basis for learning, and therefore, it was this which formed the underlying
basis of their definition of ‘valid knowledge’. It was clear that music which pupils
considered to be ‘fun’, and which was generally in more popular styles, often fell outside
of their instrumental teaching curriculum, and was therefore deemed to be not valid.
Previous research found that whilst popular styles were of most interest to pupils, these
were the least covered in lessons (Daniel & Bowden, 2013). Jorgensen (2015, p. 5)
suggests that ‘musical values sometimes clash or rub up against each other, and each
tradition is interested in its own survival’. Responses suggest that private teachers are
keen to preserve a heritage of Western Classical Music, something which in the 21st
century may potentially be seen as under threat.
Responses often indicate that teachers believed that all pupils should study the rudiments
of music which were to be learnt through the study of ‘classical works’. There was a sense
that teachers felt that pupils had to accept there would be some aspects of the learning
which were non-negotiable, and by consequence, likely to be ‘boring’. Teachers were
concerned with the quality of both their teaching, and their pupils’ learning, but again, with
no agreed definition of what constitutes ‘high quality’, this was predominantly vested in the
‘quality’ of the repertoire learnt. Teachers also tended to favour teaching music which
aligned with their own listening tastes, and overall, previous research (Baughman, 2015)
found that teachers preferred teaching skills with which they were familiar.
Teachers frequently cited the acquisition of ‘sound’ technique as being essential, and this
was something which should be taught through music of the Western Classical Tradition.
199
Teachers suggested that this ‘classical technique’ must form the basis for anything else
studied, including learning music from non-classical genres, namely popular music, a
theme which emerged in phase one (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.2). It is interesting to note
that at no point did a respondent suggest that technique gained through the study of
popular music could be applied to other styles, such as Western Classical Music. Once
again, the emphasis is placed on a genre of music, rather than on musical experiences.
Responses overwhelmingly suggest that music of the Western Classical Tradition was
seen to have greater value than popular music, and thus, teachers favoured the former.
Indeed, some teachers referred to the ‘art’ of playing, in the same way they might refer to
an object of art. Some teachers were concerned that what they taught should support the
music that pupils were learning in school. Previous research (Walker, 2001) has
highlighted that through the National Curriculum, the aesthetic value of music is
reinforced, and therefore, the private teaching curriculum appears to feed into that.
Indeed, in 2013 (Department for Education, 2013), the National Curriculum in England
was revised to include the study of works by the ‘great composers’. It was unclear in the
responses whether teachers valued the popular styles of music with which pupils were
often more familiar. There are two possible scenarios here, as identified by Swanwick
(1994): teachers may value their pupils’ tastes in music, but do not actively seek to teach
them; or they may not value their tastes, and this is their reason for excluding them.
Such high levels of veneration were placed on the acquisition of classical technique that
some teachers believed that anything which deviated from this could result in the
disruption of progress. There was a perception that non-classical music did not offer
sufficient technical challenge, and this was another reason for excluding popular music.
Previous research (Lehmann et al., 2007; A. Reid, 2001) has cited teaching which is
technique-heavy to also be teacher-dominated; indeed, by limiting what is taught in the
curriculum, this only sought to increase focus on the technical aspects of learning an
instrument (A. Reid, 2001). Responses suggest that the dominance of technique, which is
often cited as necessary on safety grounds, is a means by which teachers can exert their
control. A strong focus on technique favours a behaviourist approach which is centred in
part, on the repetition of mechanical actions.
8.2.4 The act of teaching that which teachers perceive to be ‘needed’
Data suggest teachers felt a responsibility to cover everything that was ‘needed’. As there
are no agreed definitions of what is ‘needed’, responses suggest, as discussed in the
preceding three sections, teachers teach that which is needed to conform to the system;
thus, to acquire classical technique and to study works of the Western Classical Tradition.
200
One of the features of a constructivist approach is that learners return to previous learning
and understanding in view of new experiences (Moore, 2012). Indeed, previous research
(Burwell, 2016a) found that pupils often sought greater opportunity for self-discovery than
was afforded to them, and that by drawing additionally on learners’ previous knowledge
and experience, this could greater exploit their potential (Mark, 2007). The acquisition of a
foundation set of skills, often dominated by technique, appears to be at odds with such an
approach, as it is too with Bruner’s (1960, 1996) notion of spiral learning in which learners
might step backwards and sideward as well as forwards. As these approaches tend to
favour breadth over depth, it is possible to see why the instrumental curriculum might
appear so narrow. Responses suggest a linear approach to learning whereby once one
skill has been acquired, the pupil moves forward to learn the next. This is reinforced, as
discussed in Chapter 7 (section 7.2.6), by the way in which teachers feel that pupils
should progress and be seen to be moving forward.
The system appears to favour the transmission of knowledge in a predominantly fixed
way. If pupils have not acquired certain skills and knowledge, then their options may be
limited, and their choices curtailed. This may go some way to explaining why teachers feel
that pupils should all, possibly alongside their own choices, learn that which the teacher
deems them to ‘need’. Connected to the sense of responsibility which teachers feel, is
there a fear of judgement, either from other teachers, or from others in the system? If
teachers do not align their teaching and their pupils’ progress to the system, is there a
danger that if pupils transfer to another teacher, they may be critical of their approach? In
her interview, Participant B spoke of the problems associated with accepting transfer
students (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.5). It is not possible from the data gathered to say
whether teachers feel they might be judged; however, responses suggest that individually,
teachers often have strong ideas as to what instrumental lessons should consist of, and
these are likely to vary considerably between individuals.
8.2.5 The use of graded examinations and their requirements
Responses suggest that private teachers operate within a culturally-situated system in
which membership and subject loyalty are established at an early stage (Bernstein, 1975).
Many teachers are likely to have experienced this system themselves either through their
own teachers, or through the institutions at which they studied. Just as that system was
perpetuated to them, so it is perpetuated to their pupils. In contrast, a community of
practice constantly evolves and does not exist to be passed on as a fixed entity (Wenger,
2008). As Morgan (1998, p. 1) states, ‘instrumental teachers are hampered by a range of
demands and constraints’, some of which may manifest in a perceived need to be passing
on knowledge and experience to the next generation.
201
Data suggest private teachers see the system as something which is, in general, fixed. As
outlined above, the need for particular levels of competence to be reached in order to
meet entry requirements at varying stages of musical progression alludes to this. This can
also be seen in the examples of the national ensembles cited above: there is a fixed level
of playing ability which is required in order for children to adopt membership of these
groups at a fairly early age. A certain graded level of playing is required, and this is fixed
by the examination boards who produce the syllabi for the differing grade levels. It is not
just repertoire which is part of this, but also elements of technical ability, aural awareness,
and sight-reading skills. This suggests that in order to adopt membership of the system,
there are fixed requirements which can be seen exerted on a variety of different levels.
The examination boards become another layer in the system. Private teachers may
develop their understanding of knowledge as a result of engagement with an exam
syllabus, or indeed, such understanding may impact upon their choice of exam syllabi for
their pupils. This suggests that there could be either an overreliance on exam syllabi to
form the basis of curricula, or a situation in which private teachers feel compelled to follow
such syllabi due to its embeddedness in the system.
Teachers were keen to point out that when it came to exams, they felt it was important
that pupils were allowed, in the main, to freely choose pieces from the syllabus (see
Chapter 6, section 6.3.2). This might, on the face of it, appear to offer the pupil even
greater choice than that offered by the teacher, but in actual fact, that choice is pre-
determined by the exam board. In that sense, the exam board has deemed its selection of
pieces to be valid, and responses suggest this can feed the teacher’s own judgement of
what is valid. Although previous research (Mark, 2007) found that more choice led to
better learning behaviours, it is not clear whether such behaviours ultimately favour the
teacher or the pupil. An exam syllabus consists of pieces chosen by an exam board, and
indeed responses tended to suggest teachers selected the ‘most appropriate’ syllabus for
each pupil. Although pupils may choose pieces from the selected syllabus, their choice,
has already been limited. Linked to this is the notion that teachers required pupils to learn
the ‘standard repertoire’, although there appears to be no universal agreement as to what
this constitutes. Given that previous research (Burwell, 2013; Cope, 1998; Sloboda, 2008)
has identified the dominant outcome of instrumental learning as being an expectation that
pupils will become a ‘concert soloist’, despite the perception that exams can offer pupils
more choice, they are clearly an important part of the progression.
8.2.6 Appropriate teacher training and engagement with CPD
Teachers exhibited a keenness to keep up-to-date with the latest developments and
engage in CPD, and indeed, previous research (Upitis et al., 2017) cited a high-uptake of
202
CPD opportunities by private teachers. As private teachers are not required to engage in
any ongoing training or development, they have a choice over what, if any, they
undertake. A potentially negative aspect of this is that they only partake in those
development opportunities which fit with that which they term to be valid. Another
interpretation might be that the CPD available to them, shapes their understanding of
knowledge, and how this might be transmitted. Many of the CPD opportunities available,
are organised by institutions and exam boards, already embedded at various layers of the
system. It is, in some ways, easy for private teachers to avoid those areas beyond their
comfort zones, and thus, CPD becomes another layer of the system.
As found in previous research (Haddon, 2009), teachers tended to develop their practice
from experience, and within the four walls of their studio (Burwell, 2016a). Similarly,
research has found that teachers’ use of informal learning practice is based upon their
experience of these (Robinson, 2012). If teachers tend to favour those things which they
themselves have experience of, they might at one level not develop their skills beyond
those experience, or simply may not be aware of what else is available. When allowed to
choose the CPD opportunities they engage in, it is possible for private teachers to seek
those opportunities within their comfort zone, which validate and reinforce their
judgements of what is valid. That is not to say that CPD opportunities are not important in
terms of revalidating and expanding existing knowledge, but this does not necessarily
facilitate the teacher in experiencing the unfamiliar.
In consideration of the above, what counts as valid knowledge is ultimately defined by the
teacher, but their responses suggest they are influenced at a number of different layers of
engagement with an accepted system. Rather than just one large community of practice,
there are many smaller ones, of which there is much overlap. Teachers’ curricula might be
defined in terms of their own experiences and received teaching, or they might be defined
by their own philosophical position with regard to musical knowledge. Even though private
teachers are not employed directly by an institution, higher education institutions and
exam boards all exert their own interconnected influence on such teachers, and vice
versa. As suggested by Foucault (1979), institutions are primarily concerned with
governing subjects so that they remain obedient to the system.
Based on my research, it seems clear is that in 2019, the instrumental teaching curriculum
is one dominated by both music of the Western Classical Tradition and, by consequence,
classical technique. It is in part, these things which underpin the accepted norms of the
system. Just as there are many peripheral communities of practice, the system itself
becomes a community of practice of its own. As a result of that, it is one which is
predominantly teacher-dominant, and one which views learning, teaching and knowledge
203
within fairly narrow terms. Teachers draw on their previous experiences to shape their
ideas surrounding what constitutes valid knowledge. It is not possible to tell whether that
which teachers define as valid, is also defined as valid by their pupils; however, responses
overall suggest that with greater knowledge and experience, pupils should accept that it is
necessary to learn those things deemed valid by their teachers.
8.3 How do teachers facilitate the construction of valid knowledge?
Having considered how private teachers determine what valid knowledge encompasses, it
is necessary to consider how the teaching of such knowledge manifests itself in practice,
in other words, the pedagogy. With music of the Western Classical Tradition at its heart,
lessons are dominated by a need for pupils to acquire a foundation set of skills and
knowledge, with a sound technical foundation, something which teachers predominantly
saw as fixed. Having validated the content of their curricula via a number of layers of
engagement with the system, private teachers must find ways of facilitating the
construction of that knowledge in practice. On closer analysis of the data, teachers
employed a range of means by which they could control the course of the lessons, so that
the content remained valid. Whilst responses suggested teachers were keen to meet
pupils’ individual needs, they also displayed a desire to set boundaries in a way which
could ultimately be seen to be keeping their pupils ‘on track’. I shall explore a number of
these below.
8.3.1 Teacher expertise
At the outset, based on my research, there is evidence to suggest that often, teachers
explicitly believed themselves to be right and it is that which the teachers deem to be valid
which forms the basis of the lesson content. Even where pupils were encouraged to offer
their own suggestions, for example, of pieces to learn, responses suggest that for such
music to be taught, there must be some valid learning point to be derived from it.
Responses indicate that teachers believe themselves to be the ‘expert’, or at the very
least, to possess greater ‘expertise’; previous literature refers to the notion of the expert
teacher (Persson, 1994, 1996). Responses to the survey suggest that many private
teachers believe that having a teacher is a requirement for anyone wanting to learn an
instrument (see Chapter 7, section 7.2.1). In practical terms, whilst the teacher may
possess greater expertise than the pupil, it is expertise in those things which they deem to
be valid. It is perfectly possible that the pupils themselves might have greater expertise in
areas which the teacher does not deem to be valid. The notion of the teacher as an
‘expert’ is at odds with the hallmarks of a community of practice. Whilst pupils may learn
204
with a more experienced ‘other’, no one person dominates the community. It is also worth
noting that pupils will have other interests and are likely to belong to other communities of
musical practice beyond the private one-to-one lesson. Responses suggest that teachers
may seek to supress their pupils’ input in areas which fall outside of that which they judge
to be valid.
One way of interpreting this suppression of pupil input is that teachers see such input as a
threat to their perceived expertise. Indeed, as previous research suggests (Hallam &
Bautista, 2012), teachers may perceive themselves to possess greater expertise by virtue
of having been engaged with music and music education over a longer period of time. In
that sense, teachers see themselves higher up the hierarchy of the system. This is, once
again, highlighted by teachers feeling that pupils need to be taught by someone with
greater knowledge than they have, and that without this, pupils may as well teach
themselves (see Chapter 7, section 7.2.1). By supressing pupil input, and by maximising
their perceived greater expertise, teachers are able to focus the content of their lessons
on those skills and the knowledge that they have previously deemed to be valid.
Responses suggest that teachers see knowledge as something which is passed on, rather
than something which is constructed, and which evolves through negotiation, partnership,
social interaction and community. Little emphasis is placed on learning through musical
experiences.
Whilst there is an acceptance that teachers do not know everything, there was
nevertheless, a strong sense that teachers drew upon their expertise, an expertise which,
was greater than that of their pupils (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.8). This perceived role as
the ‘expert’ indicates another means by which teachers could dominate lessons.
Jorgensen (2015, p. 3) argues that ‘practically speaking, what is considered “right”
conduct is framed by those with the power to create and enforce the rules that define it’.
Therefore, in terms of power, the party with the greater expertise wields a greater degree
of power in the teacher-pupil relationship. As highlighted by Foucault (1979), knowledge is
power, and power can often be wielded through the use of language.
8.3.2 Responding to individual pupil needs
Teachers wrote extensively about consulting and discussing with their pupils and saw this
as a means by which they could afford pupils choice (see Chapter 6, sections 6.3.6, 6.3.7
and 6.3.8). However, if pupils see their teacher as the ‘expert’, the ‘master teacher’, and
the perceived power which inevitably goes with that, how are they likely to respond in
such ‘consultations’ and ‘discussions’? Previous research (Lehmann et al., 2007) found
that the very essence of the master-apprentice model is one in which pupils strive to
205
emulate their teachers. Private teachers believed that by discussing and consulting with
their pupils, it affords those pupils greater autonomy; however, this might manifest itself as
false generosity (Freire, 1996). Pupils may feel they are being given autonomy because
they have been asked and consulted, but there is no guarantee that any such outcomes
are translated into practical actions. Responses suggest that teachers believe that their
presence, their greater knowledge and expertise are necessary in order for pupils to learn.
In other words, the teacher may well listen, but they might not act.
Jorgensen (2015, p. 10) likens this to the notion of ‘instrumental justice’ which she sees
‘as a means to other ends’. Whilst this can embody positive outcomes such as happiness
and peace, it can also benefit the ‘establishment’ and the ‘powerful elites’ (Jorgensen,
2015, p. 10). Whether it is intentional or otherwise, many responses suggest a degree of
false generosity (see Chapter 7, section 7.2 in particular). Jorgensen (2015, p. 10) argues
that:
‘teachers may invoke justice as a tool to create the appearance of beneficence
and care for their students, meanwhile conducting programs that are unjust in the
treatment of those who are disadvantaged by the system.’
Despite a strong focus on those things they have defined as being valid, private teachers
exhibited a keen desire to meet individual pupils’ needs, and numerous survey responses
referred to this (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1). They saw it as important that they tailored
their teaching in a way which allowed pupils to meet their own goals and objectives,
something which is reflected in previous research (Baughman, 2015). However, there are
instances where teachers suggest that choice should be restricted if it does not meet the
pupils’ aims and objectives. This is problematic, and could suggest that these aims and
objectives may, in fact, be defined by the teacher, or at the very least, moulded by the
teacher, something also found in a previous study (Carey et al., 2017). Indeed, P106
pointed out that as a teacher, they offered choice to their pupils, but only with ‘guided
input’, and even where teachers sought to compromise, responses indicate such
compromise was based on the ‘strong suggestions’ they, as a teacher, put forward. This
suggests the community of practice between teacher and pupil is one in which the teacher
dominates.
Responses suggested that teachers were not always able to articulate clearly how
learning took place, with the focus being predominantly on pupils’ preferred learning styles
such as learning by ear, by visual means, or by physical action. Whilst these important
considerations allow a teacher to respond to their pupils’ individual personalities, such
preferences do not, in themselves, constitute learning theories, and all three could be
applied across a range of different theoretical positions. Where teachers felt that a pupil
206
was not progressing as expected with something they had been given, the teacher sought
to try a different approach (e.g. learning by ear or by rote) which they perceived might
better suit the pupil’s learning preference. Despite calls for the teaching of teachers (Kite,
1990), and indeed, for the training of performers in teaching (Purser, 2005), all training
and development opportunities are optional for private teachers. Responses suggested a
misunderstanding or a lack of awareness as to the difference between curriculum and
pedagogy (see Chapter 6, sections 6.3 and 6.4).
It is worth noting that although they were not explicitly asked, no responses made
reference to pupils’ wider engagement in music, and private teachers appeared to see the
lesson as a self-contained entity with little, if any, reference to the wider musical
community. In that sense, the one-to-one lesson appeared to be the dominant force, and
the notion that learning might take place in relation to wider experiences and social
interaction was not widely, if at all, considered.
Teachers felt that by adapting their teaching to the needs of individual pupils, this
constituted ‘student-led’ teaching. Whilst there is no universally agreed definition of
student-led teaching, the concept is one which would seem to imply partnership and
negotiation. Indeed, Freire (1996) argued that the teacher needed to be as much a pupil,
as the pupil was a teacher. Whilst teachers were keen to point out their desire to tailor
their approach to individual pupils, one way to interpret this could be that teachers are
adapting what they define as valid to individual pupils. This once again highlights the
perception of knowledge which is fixed, and which teachers see as something to transmit
to their pupils. There was little, if any, suggestion that private teachers saw knowledge as
something which might be constructed in relation to the world around them, and similarly,
little, if any suggestion that knowledge was something which could evolve and develop.
Responses suggest that progress was often seen as linear, and that following the
development of a foundation set of skills and knowledge, pupils could then progress to
learning more complex pieces as independent learning skills were developed.
Private teachers felt that they should facilitate a learning environment where pupils could
fulfil their potential (see Chapter 5, section 5.5.6). Without knowing how teachers define
‘potential’ this could well be potential within the bounds of what the teacher defines to be
valid. In that sense, by restricting lessons to that which the teacher deems to be valid,
teachers could, themselves, be defining and potentially limiting their pupils’ potential.
Whilst Vygotsky (1978, 1986) emphasised the need for student-centred learning, he also
argued that the concept of partnership was important. Indeed, he also argued that
boundaries needed to be pushed in order for learning to take place (Küpers et al., 2015).
If teachers see pupils’ potential as fixed, and pre-determined, this has the potential to limit
207
their potential progress and understanding. Constructivists and social constructivists
would argue that rather than being fixed, potential could expand and develop in relation to
the environment and situations in which a pupil finds themselves. A narrow curriculum
could limit potential.
Teachers were keen to be sensitive to the age and perceived capabilities of their pupils,
though responses occasionally suggest that teachers were not necessarily using
pedagogies appropriate to the age group, resulting in what they perceived to be
disobedience and misbehaviour (see Chapter 7, section 7.2.8). Similarly, teachers wished
to be sensitive to the cultural traditions of pupils, and despite everything, teachers often
demonstrated an awareness of the potential clash of cultures between them and their
pupils, as has been highlighted in previous research (Abramo, 2014; Daniel & Bowden,
2013; Kastner, 2014; Mills, 2007).
Responses suggest the master-apprentice model still dominates, and such a tradition
places its emphasis on the teacher at the centre: ‘the apprenticeship tradition in
conservatoire education assumes that teachers’ expertise is the main source for the
development of future music professionals’ (Rumiantsev et al., 2017, p. 371). As has been
highlighted, there is an often-displayed assumption that a career in music is the end goal
of learning an instrument. Previous research (Burwell, 2013) found that features of the
master-apprentice approach, whilst rooted in history, remained valid, even if as an
approach in itself, it does not necessarily align with modern higher education thinking.
Whilst my study does not focus on teaching in higher education, as previously explored,
higher education exerts influence on teachers’ practice and validation of knowledge.
In some instances, teachers were keen to point out that they felt it necessary to set
boundaries (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.2). Private teachers felt they needed to be
sensitive to their pupils’ boundaries too. Sensitivity to pupils’ individual needs, and their
potential limitations is clearly important; however, examining this the other way around, it
may also offer teachers an opportunity to strengthen their control. Whilst it is clear that
some boundaries are necessary, by setting them, teachers could potentially limit pupils’
engagement with learning that which they, as teachers, deem not to be valid.
Constructivists argued that in order for the learner’s understanding to move forward and
develop, their minds needed to be disturbed (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). Similarly, social
constructivists would also cite the need for the teacher’s mind to also be disturbed so that
shared understanding may be developed alongside the pupil, another feature of a
community of practice. Indeed, previous research (Küpers et al., 2015) has suggested that
if boundaries are to be placed, these should be constructed by negotiation, although, it
208
was recognised that this can prove problematic in ensuring an appropriate balance (Carey
& Grant, 2015). By the teacher setting boundaries, which could be interpreted as being
disguised as seeking to be sensitive to pupils’ individual needs, they are diminishing the
opportunity for minds to be disturbed, and therefore, that knowledge that they deem to be
valid, is that which sits within those boundaries. Conversely, some teachers saw it as
important to play to pupils’ strengths, which may produce the same outcome in reverse.
Interestingly, teachers were keen to push pupils beyond their perceived ‘comfort zones’,
yet there is little indication that teachers were prepared to travel beyond theirs.
One of the hallmarks of private teaching identified in both the interviews and the survey,
was that private teachers could choose who they taught (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.5).
Private teachers saw this as an advantage over institution-based teaching and felt it would
‘weed out’ those pupils who were not interested or not suited to instrumental learning. In
some cases, they were able to avoid teaching those who they deemed not to have talent,
suggesting that teachers primarily view pupils in terms of their perceived inherited ‘ability’
(Hallam & Bautista, 2012).
There could be advantages to this, and there may be times where a teaching style and
philosophy has not matched that of the pupil, or more often, the parents. However, by
restricting who they teach, this offers a way by which private teachers might maintain their
control. It could effectively mean they can choose to teach only those who they perceive
to have ‘talent’ or ‘potential’. In some ways, it might be argued that this is in fact,
responsible teaching, and that teachers are playing to their strengths for the benefit of
their pupils. The potential problem with this, is that as if private teaching is so embedded
in a system, it could be all too easy for a whole subset of learners to be excluded if they
wanted to learn an instrument in a way which did not conform, something also of concern
to Jorgensen (2015). There are many people learning instruments with no desire to
pursue a career in music (McCarthy, 2017), yet, as I have previously explored, the notion
of the concert soloist and performer, is something which underpins many teachers’
curricula.
8.3.3 Pedagogical and curricula contradictions
Many responses suggest an overriding sense of contradiction; an apparent mismatch
between what teachers say they do, what they believe they do, and what they report to
have facilitated in practice, something also highlighted in previous research (Burwell,
2016a). This was highlighted in the work of Argyris and Schön (1974) who suggested that
for effective learning to take place, an individual’s espoused theory needed to be in
209
congruence with their theory-in-use. There are a number of examples where data suggest
these may be incongruent.
Teachers’ responses suggested a keenness to broaden pupils’ horizons, and to
demonstrate to them what was possible on their chosen instrument. There are, however,
numerous examples which suggest that pupils’ horizons may only be broadened within an
acceptable range, as defined by the teacher. As explored above, teachers used a variety
of means to validate what they teach, suggesting that such broadening may only occur
within that defined as valid. In this instance, broadening horizons would appear to offer
pupils a greater choice, but as these ‘horizons’ are predefined by the teachers’ judgement
of what is valid, the choice has been limited.
Teachers were keen to point out they sought to work in partnership with their pupils when
it came to choosing what and how to teach (see Chapter 6, section 6.3.8; and Chapter 7,
section 7.2.10). Closely linked to the idea of negotiation, is that of partnership. Social
constructivists have argued that in order to work in partnership, teachers need to re-
orientate their own personal philosophies (Kastner, 2014), and that even in reference to
the master-apprentice model, learning could be transformed through collaboration
(Johansson, 2013). Data suggest that teachers were often aware of the benefits of
collaboration and negotiation, and that they recognised the need for balance. They did
however list numerous circumstances where pupil input needed to be limited (see Chapter
7, section 7.2). This suggests that whilst teachers valued, and in some cases even
encouraged collaboration, it needed to be within an acceptable range. This is seen in the
responses which highlight the areas of the curriculum which teachers saw as ‘non-
negotiable’ and where pupils had no say.
Of particular interest are the numerous responses which relate to ‘own-choice’ pieces (see
Chapter 6, section 6.3.1); pieces which often appear to fall outside of that which the
teacher judges to be valid. That said, such pieces are used extensively for a variety of
different reasons. Allowing pupils to choose or bring their own pieces was seen as a way
to motivate them, and something which teachers appeared keen to encourage.
Responses occasionally suggest that own-choice pieces could be used as a way to
motivate pupils to work more effectively on those pieces chosen by the teacher. In that
sense, as has been highlighted in previous research (Cope, 1998), the responsibility for
motivation could rest with the pupil. Responses also suggested that by learning own-
choice pieces, pupils will be afforded a sense of achievement which would, in turn, also
motivate them to learn other pieces chosen by the teacher
210
Overall, data suggest that teachers used such own-choice pieces, often defined as ‘fun’
pieces, as a reward. However, as stated previously, Skinner (1936) saw the use of such
rewards as a means to condition behaviour, in this instance, to comply with the teacher.
This is another example of what Freire (1996, p. 53) termed to be the ‘student-teacher
contradiction’. Freire (1996) sought an alternative approach in which both teacher and
pupil became both teachers and pupils simultaneously, in other words, learning together.
Responses suggest the use of own-choice pieces could be used as a means to motivate
pupils to comply with the transmission of that knowledge which teachers judged to be
valid. It is an example of what Freire (1996) saw as teachers giving the impression of
softening their control.
In some ways, teachers also saw own-choice pieces as a means by which pupils could
develop independent learning skills. As P224 wrote, ‘pupils bring music to me, and I don’t
always regard it as useful to learn but encourage them to look at it on their own’,
suggesting that music outside of the teacher’s curriculum should be learnt independently
of the lesson. Of course, there is nothing to preclude pupils learning such pieces
independently; however, they will have needed to acquire a certain amount of
independent learning skills to achieve that.
As cited in previous research (Upitis et al., 2017), teachers saw repertoire at the heart of
the learning experience. Teachers’ responses indicated that they felt they were familiar
with a wide variety of repertoire, and just as Jorgensen (1986) found, saw this as a
necessary attribute of being a private teacher. On the one hand, it might be argued that
teachers are familiar with a wide variety of repertoire, so long as they have deemed it
valid. On the other hand, it seems perfectly possible that new repertoire pieces could be
introduced which still conformed to the teacher’s definition of what was valid.
Demonstrated again is incongruence between a teacher’s espoused theory and their
theory-in-use. Whilst teachers believe they have knowledge of a wide repertoire, in
practice, it is within their acceptable range. By keeping the repertoire selections within an
acceptable range, Jorgensen (2015, p. 15) argued, ‘the procedures employed in the
selection of musical repertoire…may not be as procedurally transparent and even-handed
as they need to be’. She goes on to raise concern about the ‘appearance rather than the
reality of democratic governance’ (Jorgensen, 2015, p. 15). Argyris and Schön (1974)
argue that teachers employ action strategies which are designed to keep their governing
variables within an acceptable range. Responses throughout suggest that teachers are
able to articulate fairly clearly which repertoire falls within their acceptable range for
teaching. Argyris and Schön (1974) suggest that whatever teachers might say they
211
believe, if their action strategies keep their governing variables within their acceptable
range, they consider themselves to be winning.
By teachers allowing pupils ‘choice’ over the repertoire they learnt, they felt this gave the
pupils ownership over their learning. However, that choice is already limited, and often
pre-defined by the teacher; for example, by allowing pupils to choose pieces from a given
selection, a selection which the teacher judges to be valid (see Chapter 6, section 6.3.1).
Indeed, some teachers suggested that they only offered choice ‘where appropriate’ (P28,
P85), that is, ‘appropriate’ as defined by the teacher. The same approach was also
applied by teachers to books, in other words, allowing pupils a ‘choice’ from a given
selection of books (P40, P257). These strategies appear to offer pupils choice and input,
yet that choice is already pre-determined by the teacher in order to match their judgement
on what is valid. Responses suggest that above all, teachers were keen to be seen to
offer choice, even if the outcome is already known.
Overall, responses suggest teachers felt they were offering choice, and indeed, wished
their pupils to feel as if they had been given a choice. There were, however, many
examples where that choice was limited by the teacher. In that sense, a teacher’s
espoused theory might be that they offer their pupils choice over repertoire; however, in
order to maintain their governing variables within an acceptable range, their theory-in-use
suggests any choice is necessarily restricted.
8.3.4 Teacher responsibility
As I have previously explored (see Chapter 5, section 5.6.5; and Chapter 7, section 7.2.5),
teachers feel a good deal of responsibility. In some cases, this was to their own teachers,
or to the institutions at which they had studied, both of which they felt a strong loyalty to.
In some cases, it was a responsibility to the profession, even to the aesthetic value of
music. In other cases, it was a responsibility towards their pupils or to their pupils’ parents,
the latter of whom they recognised as paying for the lessons. Teachers felt a responsibility
to move pupils forwards, to increase their consumption of the valid knowledge which they
were transmitting.
Responses indicate that a feeling of responsibility appears to underpin much of what
private teachers talk about. Whilst a profession which feels a degree of responsibility is
surely a positive thing, it also has the potential to act as a mechanism by which teachers
can increase or maintain their control. Indeed, teachers were concerned about losing
control of their lessons, and whilst they recognised they played additional roles such as
therapists, life coaches, carers, and in some cases as parental figures (see Chapter 5,
212
section 5.5.8), these could inhibit progress. Similarly, some teachers suggested they
wanted to be friends with pupils, to be seen as friendly, and teachers saw this as
beneficial to the pupil-teacher relationship. Whilst there was an awareness of the
importance of the pupil-teacher relationship and its effect on learning, responses do not
necessarily suggest pupils benefit from such notions of friendship. It is possible, as with
the use of own-choice pieces, friendship was seen as beneficial if teachers wished to
retain control.
Responses to my survey clearly demonstrate that teachers have a love of music, and they
want to pass this on to their pupils; however, the music the teachers love is not
necessarily that which pupils love. Responses indicate that teachers are clearly
passionate about their subject, and they want others to be passionate too. Whilst it is a
laudable desire to want to teach pupils how to love music, there is a danger that this
translates to loving the ‘right’ music. Private teachers’ responses suggest they
predominantly view musical works as objects of aesthetic value. One interpretation of the
data is that teachers wish their pupils to appreciate the beauty in these ‘works of art’, more
than what might be derived from the act of making music.
This, of course, is a long-standing and wide-ranging debate. I have previously reflected on
the varying and developing positions of Dewey, Reimer, Elliott and others (see Chapter 4),
but this is clearly a much larger philosophical debate about music as object, and music as
experience. Indeed, Dewey (Väkevä, 2012, p. 9), in the early 20th century argued
that ‘aesthetic experience is within reach of everybody and should be cultivated as such’.
Dewey did not suggest it was something which was only within the reach of those with
‘talent’ or ‘potential’. Indeed, this echoes the work of Freire (1996) who argued that when
teachers and students engage in reflection simultaneously, there is no separating thought
from action.
In teachers’ desire to transmit the value of musical works to the next generation, this may
afford pupils membership of a self-perpetuating system, but does not necessarily
recognise the value in music-making itself, something which, just as Dewey (2005) saw in
Art as Experience, Elliott (2005) saw as crucial to his philosophy of music education.
Similarly, Freire (1996) argued that experiences resulted from both thought and action,
and in Deweyan terms, ‘not all experience seeks knowledge’ (Väkevä, 2012, p. 12). A
learning community evolves through its practice, not solely through objects, whether they
be physical objects or objects of knowledge, being passed from one generation to
another.
213
Overall, teachers appear to value the aesthetics of music. Data suggest they feel a
responsibility to teach music of the Western Classical Tradition, and music which requires
classical technique. In some ways, this is perhaps unsurprising, given that teachers were
predominantly based in Western Society; however, there is an underlying sense of
defining what is valid in a much broader sense. Teachers did not describe music in a
social sense, and there was no explicit suggestion that music could be learnt other than in
the one-to-one lesson with a live, face-to-face teacher. It is interesting to note that
teachers often felt compelled to justify the value of what they teach in order to get pupils
‘on board’. There is the sense that pupils need to be persuaded to embrace the teacher’s
definition of what counts as valid, to see the beauty in that which the teacher loves.
8.3.5 Changing and evolving teacher and pupil roles
As I have previously explored, what teachers judge to be valid knowledge is primarily
based on their engagement with the system at various layers. Each layer itself will have
constructed its own judgement on what is valid, and this will inevitably impact upon and
influence the judgements which private teachers make. In its form as a self-perpetuating
system, it might be the case that teachers see no way to step outside of this. Unlike a
community of practice, such a system is predominantly fixed in a way as it can be passed
from one generation to another. That said, as Jorgensen (2015, p. 4) points out, ‘even if
music educators agree on the particular ends they seek, there is the ever-present problem
that they will not do what they believe they should’, something which echoes the sense of
being ‘stuck’ within a self-perpetuating system.
Teachers demonstrate that they validate what is taught in a fairly fixed way; however,
what is valid now, might not be valid in 10 years. The need to keep evolving, changing
and refining perceptions of what is valid is at the heart of an effective community of
practice. Dewey (Väkevä, 2012, p. 17) argued that democracy is not merely a mechanism
to facilitate choice, but rather, an ‘ethical ideal of a community life that remains alert and
open to different interpretations’. In addition to Dewey, a number of other educational
writers such as Maxine Greene and Parker Palmer ‘embrace a democratic view of the
community as a group of people united around particular beliefs and practices…acting
humanely towards one another’, in other words, the community is more than simply just
the individuals who comprise it (Jorgensen, 2015, p. 7). However, Jorgensen (2015) is
cautious, saying that a democracy is potentially vulnerable to influence by power and
money.
In some respects, it is easy to see that some teachers may feel constrained by the
system. However, younger pupils, and more often than not, their parents, do arrive with
214
pre-conceived ideas about what learning an instrument involves. Indeed, it is possible that
parents form another layer which influences teachers’ judgement on what is valid;
however, this was not, overall, a strong theme in my data. It is, however, from this
parental expectation, that the desire for pupils to take exams and progress through an
externally-recognised benchmark can often come (Creech & Hallam, 2010). This was
highlighted in my interviews by both Participant B (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.4) and
Participant C (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.2).
Teachers’ talked of a strong feeling that pupils must acquire a certain level of foundation,
fundamental and basic skills and knowledge before they progress. Teachers saw one of
the benefits of private teaching to be the ability to allow pupils to specialise, and to follow
their own particular interests. Private teachers seem to align with Elliot’s (1993) view that
depth is needed before breadth. The acquisition of what seems to be a fairly narrow set of
foundation skills, dominated by technique, suggests that depth takes precedence over
breadth. This also reflects the establishment of membership categories and subject loyalty
at an early stage (Bernstein, 1975). A counterargument might be that if pupils are not
exposed to a breadth of possibilities in the early stages, some of which might be beyond
the teachers’ comfort zone, then it may be hard for the pupils to make judgements about
what they might specialise in later on.
Teachers suggested that pupils could follow their interests ‘as they progress’ (P71)
indicating that this happens post the ‘foundation stage’. Teachers felt that as pupils’
expertise increased, so teacher control diminished, once again, favouring depth before
breadth. Freire (1996, p. 53) wrote that in his concept of ‘banking education’, ‘knowledge
is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom
they consider to know nothing’. With responses suggesting the teacher is the dominant
force, the expert, this highlights the notion of knowledge being fixed, that is ‘parcels’ of
knowledge are passed from the teacher to the pupil. This is also reflected in teachers’
offering choice over which order to cover the lesson materials, for example,
compartmentalising scales, aural and sight-reading, as separate parcels which are in the
process of being transferred to the pupil.
The notion that as pupils’ expertise increases, teacher control diminishes is dependent
also on the pupils’ acquisition of independent learning skills, in other words, self-
regulation. In my study, teachers exhibited a strong desire to demonstrate to their pupils, a
behaviourist approach, one which can be uncritical (J. Henley, 2018). There is the danger
here is that pupils merely copy the teacher, something which is even more likely if the
teacher is seen as the ‘master’, or the ‘expert’. As a consequence of that, whilst pupils
might be able to replicate what the teacher has shown them, it does not mean they have
215
any understanding of it, hence the danger that such practice is uncritical. This, in itself, is
not necessarily conducive to the acquisition of independent learning skills. As previous
research (Hallam & Bautista, 2012, p. 5) suggests, as expertise increases, so pupils too
need to acquire the skills of ‘learning to learn’, in other words, meta-cognitive skills.
It should be noted that lessons are a business transaction between pupil and teacher.
One way to interpret this is there is a danger that in pupils acquiring independent learning
skills, they no longer need a teacher, which is, ultimately, for the teacher, ‘bad for
business’. The findings of my survey suggest there was a strong sense that in order to
learn an instrument, you needed a teacher. I think it is too strong to suggest that teachers
deliberately avoid facilitating the acquisition of independent learning skills for this reason,
but it is certainly an alternative viewpoint. In reality, as a pupil’s expertise increases and
their meta-cognitive skills develop, the role of the teacher changes. This means that
teachers might need to be aware of the point at which they may pass a pupil on. In a
community of practice, roles change, as the practice of the community evolves. As a pupil
progresses on their learning journey, so their role changes too as they move from a state
of ‘unconscious incompetence’, through to one of ‘unconscious competence’, or even,
‘reflective competence’ (Harris, 2012, pp. 12–13). Roles are constantly changing and
evolving.
As a side point, it is interesting to note that despite Jorgensen’s (2015) concerns about the
influence of money on the democratic process, there is nothing in the data to suggest that
private teachers felt influenced by this. Although there was a recognition that they were
being paid directly for their services and therefore should ensure they were delivering
what was ‘required’, this did not appear to impact upon the lessons in practical terms. It
appears that despite an awareness that lessons are a result of a business transaction,
teachers predominantly dominated the lesson.
There were instances in the data where teachers appeared to want to encourage self-
reflection, a skill obviously valuable when learning independently (Wöllner & Ginsborg,
2011). Indeed, previous research (Carey et al., 2017) suggests that where students were
engaged in self-reflection they were better able to set and assert their own goals and
objectives. That said, it was also recognised that in one-to-one tuition, due to the teacher-
pupil relationship, and the dynamics of power within that, self-reflection could inhibit the
development of an individual artistic voice (Gaunt, 2008). In some cases, private teachers
elicited feedback on previous pieces learnt, by asking pupils whether they liked them or
not. This suggests what Bloom (1956) termed to be low-order thinking which is not
conducive to effective self-reflection. Indeed, previous research (Daniel & Bowden, 2013)
found that pupil-input was often limited to responding to directed tasks.
216
Teachers were keen to point out that they valued pupils’ feedback and were keen to ask
pupils whether they liked the pieces they were learning. That said, it is not clear from the
data what may happen should the pupil not like the pieces they have been given. It is also
necessary to consider the perceived ‘expertise’ and power of the teacher, and its effect on
pupils’ responses in situations such as these. As Foucault (1979) argued, subjects,
whether they be pupils or teachers, are conditioned to a system without challenging it. A
common thread throughout my data is the way in which teachers appear to want to
embrace pupil input and collaboration, but this is often restricted (see Chapter 7, section
7.2). By consequence, the teacher is often the dominant power allowing little opportunity,
or indeed facilitating an environment in which pupils may challenge that.
8.4 Why are these communities of practice not evolving?
Many private teachers who replied to this survey saw themselves as flexible, with an
ability to tailor what they do to each individual pupil. They see this as a critical, almost
essential attribute of their role. They see this ability as an advantage to teaching privately,
and something which they feel, if they were teaching under the auspices of an institution,
may be curtailed. My data, as with previous research (Burwell, 2016a), appear to indicate
that there is a discrepancy between teachers’ espoused theory and their theory-in-use,
and I have talked of some of those pedagogical and curricula contradictions above.
Similarly, private teachers who participated in my study see themselves as open-minded,
seeking to meet the needs of individual pupils and to broaden their pupils’ horizons. They
see one of the advantages of private teaching as not being constrained by having to plan
lessons which must conform to external or institutional expectations. Whilst this might
seem an advantage, even though they may not be explicitly planning, through their
definition of what counts as valid knowledge, teachers have a set of variables which they
seek to keep within an acceptable range. There is the suggestion in many of the
responses that teachers’ theories-in-use are designed in such a way that they control the
lesson content. As stated by Argyris and Schön (1974, p. 15), ‘theories-in-use become a
means for getting what we want’.
Data suggest that at the heart of the instrumental lesson was a need for teachers to keep
a series of variables within what they perceived to be an acceptable range. Choice of
‘suitable’ repertoire was one of the fundamental areas over which teachers sought to
retain control. This echoes that found by West and Rostvall (2003, p. 16), who, writing
about instrumental lessons, say, ‘the teacher controlled the interaction, while student
attempts to take any initiative were ignored or questioned’.
217
Responses suggest that teachers see a range of advantages offered by teaching
privately, more often than not, as they are not subject to what they see as institutional
constraints. Foucault (1979) highlighted the danger whereby the primary function of an
institution is to ensure and cultivate obedience. Although private teachers perceive there
to be benefits to teaching outside of institutional control, they demonstrate, through a
range of means, a desire to cultivate obedience. Overall, data suggest an emerging
dichotomy between the freedom private teachers are afforded, and their ability to manage
this freedom effectively, for the benefit of their pupils. Private teachers are clearly
committed and dedicated, but they appear as committed to what they deem to be valid,
and thus transmission of that, as much as they are to the pupils themselves. Whilst there
are numerous examples which suggest an element of what Freire (1996) termed false
generosity, and an apparent incongruence between teachers’ espoused theories and their
theories-in-use, there is a little to suggest that they are aware of this.
Whilst the profession is not regulated, teachers claim to embrace self-reflection and self-
development, and indeed, previous research (Bjøntegaard, 2015; Carey & Grant, 2015;
Carey et al., 2017; Küpers et al., 2014) has shown such engagement as being beneficial.
Teachers showed greater concern for business and financial considerations than previous
research suggests (Jones & Parkes, 2010), and above all, there is a sense that, as private
teachers, they wish to appear professional. Data suggest private teachers were conscious
that with self-employment comes responsibility, and there is a sense that they feel they
should be offering value for money. This neo-liberal view that learning should offer value
for money suggests that teachers should be able to measure that value in some tangible
way. One such interpretation might be that teachers are effectively packaging their
musical heritage into something concrete which can be passed on to their pupils (Finney,
2016). Indeed, the notion of passing on skills and knowledge, coupled with the
compartmentalising of these has been a key theme in the data. It might be argued, that
which teachers have judged as valid becomes the ‘package’ which teachers seek to
transmit.
The danger in self-reflection is that it merely acts to serve the teacher. Self-reflection is of
great benefit, when used effectively, but it could equally be used as a means to maintain
control. Similarly, the aim of that self-reflection will impact upon its outcome; for example,
if the aim is to ensure value for money, the outcome of such reflection may be quite
different to that which looks at the acquisition of independent learning skills. The evidence
points towards a profession, which, whilst committed and dedicated, is unconscious in its
actions. Teachers appear to be unaware of their actions, and the effect these have on
their pupils, something also cited in previous research (Jorgensen, 1986).
218
Teachers were keen to be friendly with pupils, and in the words of P213, have ‘generosity
of spirit’. There is a danger that ‘generosity of spirit’ manifests itself as false generosity.
One of the current ‘buzzwords’ in piano teaching is ‘gamification’ (Cantan, 2018a), yet, as
the author of this blog post points out, ‘the fun is how the work gets done’. In other words,
what is being taught has not changed, but it is being made ‘fun’. Indeed, responses
suggest teachers want lessons to be fun, but of course, ‘fun’ for the teacher, might not be
the same as ‘fun’ for the pupil. This once again highlights a neo-liberal view of education
in which teaching is packaged, almost as a commodity which can be sold and marketed
(Finney, 2016). That is not to say that fun and games are not valuable parts of
instrumental teaching, but perhaps it is easier to sell the ‘gamified’ version of the package
than the ‘non-gamified’ version.
Responses suggest teachers were keen that pupils should fulfil their potential. They were
also keen that pupils should be successful, though it is not possible to know how they
define ‘success’. Data suggest one definition may revolve around the acquisition of valid
knowledge, and through that, the embedded outcome of the concert soloist, or, at the very
least, a career in music. In contrast to this, what a pupil, or even a parent, sees as
‘success’ might be quite different. Alongside this, teachers were keen to assess and give
feedback on their pupils’ progress, something also found in a previous study (Baughman,
2015), but it is not clear what such an assessment is measured against. There are
instances where it might be measured against an exam syllabus, but even that is pre-
determined as containing those things the exam board, also heavily embedded in the
system, judges to be valid. Overall, the emphasis was predominantly on moving forward,
that is, to learn an instrument and gradually acquire greater levels of skill and knowledge.
One interpretation is that this in itself may be deemed a ‘successful outcome’.
Overall, there was an overriding sense that teachers believed themselves to be in charge,
in control, and the expert. Whilst responses suggest teachers were keen to embrace pupil
input, any input was limited and often appeared to be fairly strictly controlled. Data
suggest teachers may see pupil input as a threat, a claim strongly supported by their
desire to remain in control, and by their concern that distraction techniques, misbehaviour
and disobedience may challenge such control. Where a community of practice is so
strongly controlled, it is possible to see why development of such practice is problematic.
8.5 How does this impact upon the effectiveness of the community of practice?
In the course of this chapter, I have explored the various layers of engagement which
teachers use to validate their curricula. Each of these layers represents its own
community of practice, just as all these go on to create an accepted system which is a
219
community of practice in itself. Thus, just as these communities exist around them, so the
teacher creates their own community of practice with their pupils. Wenger (2008) defines
the three underlying features of a community of practice to be shared repertoire, mutual
engagement, and joint enterprise, and it is through these that a community constructs
‘mediated and collective understanding’ (Aubrey & Riley, 2016, p. 174).
Despite this, Wenger (2018, p. 219) writes that ‘we arrange classrooms where students –
free from the distractions in the outside world – can pay attention to a teacher or focus on
exercises’. The private instrumental lesson appears to embody such a ‘classroom’. From
the evidence of my research, teachers see themselves at the heart of the learning
process; a one-to-one lesson seemingly detached from their pupils’ other musical
experiences and daily life. Knowledge, pre-judged of its value, is imparted to pupils so that
they might conform to the accepted norms of a system. In that sense, whilst on a
superficial level, private teachers demonstrate many hallmarks which relate to a
community of practice, analysis suggests that such hallmarks are not employed
effectively.
Data suggest it is clear that the use of the master-apprentice model is still very much in
evidence, and indeed, it is worth noting that in previous research, instances were
identified where pupils craved it (Burwell, 2013; Küpers et al., 2015). It seems it is so
embedded in the system, that even pupils, and indeed, their parents, are aware of it.
Indeed, so embedded is it, previous research (Burwell, 2005) found that many pupils, and
teachers, believed that the ideas of the ‘master’ teacher were more valid than those of
their apprentices, these becoming the primary source for their musical development and
progression (Rumiantsev et al., 2017). However, as data suggest, private teaching is
dominated by a behaviourist approach, this is at odds with Lave and Wenger’s (1991)
research into apprenticeships, in which they found that learning did not take place through
repetition of mechanical action.
Whilst at its best, the private lesson may be an effective community of practice, data
suggest that it does not function at as high a level as it might. While on the face of it, such
an interaction as the private one-to-one lesson exhibits many of the hallmarks associated
with such practice, underneath, they frequently appear ineffective. For a community of
practice to be effective, members should be active participants in the practices of such
communities, constructing identities in relation to them (Wenger, 2008). In the case of the
private music lesson, there is little to suggest that effectively facilitating participation is
embedded in the practice. As the numerous examples have shown, pupil input is nearly
always limited in a way as to maintain teacher control. Data suggest the private teacher is
220
the dominant figure in the lesson, something which is, again, at odds with the idea of an
effective community of practice.
Likewise, the basis of a community of practice is its underpinning by social interaction. As
individual members learn, so their identities change, and the communities are refined.
There is little evidence to suggest this is the case for the private music lesson. Identities
are moulded to fit a pre-defined, value-judged system, of which the primary aim is to
uphold the values of that system. The attempt of one person, for example, the teacher, to
dominate the community is not mediated by practice, and neither negotiation nor
collaboration are embedded in the community. The existence of the private music lesson
as a community of practice does not appear to challenge traditionally held concepts,
despite its overwhelming desire to uphold them. Communities do not appear to evolve and
change over time, with the prime focus on the transmission of fixed parcels of knowledge
which teachers see as being passed from one generation to another. In a community of
practice, each generation would construct their own meanings through collaboration and
partnership. Ultimately, the teachers’ pupils, their apprentices, might not be offered the
opportunity to grow and to develop their own unique identities in response to the
community. The examples of incongruence between teachers’ espoused theories and
their theories-in-use further reinforce the imbalance of power and control.
Although teachers believed themselves to act as mentors, previous research has shown
that it is those who were taught in a more transformative style who felt mentored by their
teachers (Carey et al., 2013). Although previous research (Creech & Hallam, 2010) has
highlighted alternative models, such as those where the teacher acts as a responsive
leader, the master-apprentice model still dominates. Indeed, Robinson (2010) suggests
that anyone involved in instrumental teaching has to accept this as the dominant model of
teaching, by virtue of its cultural significance. This, in itself is not wrong, but if pupils are
moulded simply to replicate the identity and actions of the teacher, they are not being
offered the opportunity grow as individual musicians. Participation in the community is not
transformative unless that transformation is judged by the teacher to hold sufficient value.
Based on my research, it seems the primary function of the instrumental lesson is to
uphold the values of the system. It is a self-perpetuating system which shows no signs of
abating. There is no denying that teachers are passionate about their subject and about
music itself. I believe that they genuinely want to do their best for their pupils, those whom
they see as the next generation of musicians. However, they display strong behaviourist
tendencies in their teaching and for there to be an increased sense of partnership and
collaboration, research suggests (Küpers et al., 2014) this needs to be socially mediated
or at least, rooted in social interaction (Fautley, 2010).
221
Argyris and Schön (1974) identify a second model of practice (Model II) which is rooted in
collaboration and cooperation, and which seeks to reduce the mismatch between
teachers’ espoused theories and their theories-in-use. Whilst it is possible to identify
hallmarks of a community of practice in the private lesson, data suggest it is a
dysfunctional one. My research suggests that private teachers often appear unconscious
and uncritical in their practice, and as a result of that, fail to recognise the changes which
occur to the dynamics within a community of practice. Whilst extolling the virtues of being
outside of institutional control, they have, in fact, created their own institution.
It is possible to develop strategies, even within the master-apprentice framework which
facilitate greater student autonomy (Johansson, 2013; Küpers et al., 2015), and there is
clearly much to be harnessed from the commitment and enthusiasm of the private
teachers themselves. At present, there appears to be too great a degree, without
challenge, of conditioning pupils to conform to the system, and ultimately, this could have
a detrimental effect on their understanding, appreciation of and engagement with music.
Music wields the power to enhance the lives of us all. The powerful effects of music on our
health and wellbeing should not be merely embedded in our appreciation and
understanding of the aesthetic values of the past but should be found in all aspects of
musical experience and music-making. I fundamentally believe that music, and by
consequence, music education must be, for all those who engage with it, about more than
simply conformance to the system.
222
9. Key Implications and Recommendations
As part of this research project, I have analysed the findings from interviews and survey
responses in the context of both the existing literature and my insights as a practitioner.
Following a study such as this, whilst it is possible to draw together a thematic selection of
data gathered, there is, of course, much still to be done. As far as the project has made
progress in answering some questions, it has raised many others in the process. Private
teaching is an area which is under-researched, and as has been found during the course
of reviewing the literature, is in many cases side-lined. Therefore, this project seeks to
open up a new field of research. In this chapter, I offer some final words on both the
implications of and future direction of such research.
In the first part of this chapter, I will consider the place of private teachers within the wider
context of education and educational research. I shall consider in particular, the way in
which this may impact upon policy and research in the future. Following that, I will
consider some additional key themes which have emerged as a result of this research,
and the way in which key stakeholders might respond to these areas of concern. I
conclude by offering some key recommendations for those stakeholders. In the final part
of this chapter, I will consider the limitations of this research, and offer some suggestions
for both further use of data gathered, and the potential future research directions.
9.1 Key implications
9.1.1 Private teachers in a wider context
Existing literature suggests that private music teaching takes place behind closed doors
(Burwell, 2005; Creech, 2010; Jorgensen, 1986) and that teachers may be unwilling to
participate in research (Creech, 2010; Robinson, 2010). Despite this, I would argue, in the
strongest of terms, that the responses to my survey suggest otherwise. Indeed, the quality
and quantity of the responses alone has provided an incredibly rich set of data. It is also
notable that many teachers added additional comments at the end of the survey, for
example, P6 wrote ‘DEEPLY thought-provoking survey. Thank you for the opportunity
[respondent’s capitalisation]’. Likewise, P130 said:
‘Interesting! Made me think... I've never put into words 'my teaching philosophy',
but keep meaning to. Clearly I have a lot of strong opinions! Thanks for the
opportunity to think about things.’
223
P136 wrote similar, saying, ‘really interesting and thought provoking study. Given me quite
a bit to think about-thank you!’
I believe that these comments demonstrate that private music teaching is a profession
which has, to date, been side-lined within the wider context of music education policy and
research. The underlying narrative that it is a closed-door profession is not necessarily
borne out in the data. Indeed, as demonstrated by the above examples, there was a
strong sense that teachers were pleased to be asked and that being posed questions
such as those in my survey, offered a rewarding and thought-provoking experience, and a
mechanism for self-reflection. The response to my survey strongly suggests that private
music teachers are more than willing to engage in research and policymaking decisions
when asked, and indeed, have much of value and insight to contribute.
That said, even during the course of this research project, other organisations, when
gathering data and views about music education provision, have failed to engage private
teachers in the process. For example, recent research by the Musicians’ Union (2018)
asked for the views of classroom teachers, instrumental teachers, headteachers and
music managers. On closer exploration and after clarification by those involved, it was
made clear that instrumental teachers did not include private teachers, and the research
was aimed at those teaching peripatetically in schools. Whether private teachers are
being deliberately excluded from such research is unclear. When conducting a survey
which seeks to ‘diagnose and explore any issues challenging music education’
(Musicians’ Union, 2018), it seems short-sighted not to involve private teachers in a
research project which aims to influence policy decisions. In this respect, it is possible to
see why, in the past, private teachers have felt isolated in the work they do.
The data collected for this study suggest that whilst teachers were open to taking part in
research and were genuinely interested in its outcomes, this did not necessarily mean that
closed doors did not exist in other ways. As discussed Chapter 8, whilst their doors were
not closed to research, their doors might be closed to new ideas and different ways of
working. In one sense, a community of practice is one of open, and very much evolving
doors. As Jorgensen (2015, p. 12) states:
‘When participants remain open to the possibility that they may be wrong, and they
regard others’ divergent and sometimes conflicting ideas with respect and
empathy, it is possible to find common ground in which all may act together in the
interest of certain shared interests and values and a humane and civil society.’
That said, in addition to the responses to the survey, in the case of both the interviews
and the pilot survey, participants were more than willing to take part. In fact, I had more
224
offers of help than were needed. As I discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.5), I made the
decision, due to time constraints, to close the main survey once it had reached 500
responses; however, had I left it open longer, this number might well have increased. As I
have illustrated above, participants were very open both in their interview feedback and in
written responses to the survey questions.
When I presented some of my research at the University of York (Barton, 2016), I asked
how many attendees had learnt with a private teacher. In a room of over 100 people,
every single person, representing all age groups, put their hand up. Whilst I would accept
the fact that this is perhaps unsurprising at a conference focussing on music education
and psychology, I think it offers an interesting insight. Private teaching is a large and
important part of the music education landscape, and one which deserves more attention.
Through the discussions I have had with professionals, and at relevant events and
conferences, people have been genuinely interested, often being surprised that so little
research already exists. I think it is certainly true that both the internet and social media
have made it far easier to reach private teachers, and this poses an opportunity for future
researchers. The notion that private teachers do not wish to take part or are unreachable,
now feels like a poor excuse.
There is a challenge here both to researchers and those involved in policy-making
decisions within the wider field of music education. Whether it be government-led
inquiries, national reviews of practice in music education, or surveys conducted by
professional organisations, private teachers have a distinct role to play. I believe it is time
to move on from the idea that private teachers are isolated, whereas, in fact, they are
merely independent, and see themselves as so.
9.1.2 Health and well-being of private teachers
A number of private teachers highlighted features of their teaching which I found
concerning. There was a notion that private teaching was very tiring and required a good
deal of energy, and this was coupled with an appreciation that it often involved working
anti-social hours, usually, as discussed in Chapter 5 (section 5.4.5), when others of a
similar age had finished work. There has been an increase in concern for the health and
well-being of students studying music, the Healthy Conservatoires Network being an
example of this (Musical Impact, 2018). Indeed, the Royal College of Music’s Professional
Portfolio module at undergraduate level provides students with the tools to manage their
health and well-being effectively.
225
Whilst there is an increasing awareness of these issues in relation to performing
musicians, and whilst many of these are relevant also to teachers, this is an area which,
as yet, is underdeveloped. Many of those now teaching privately may not have
experienced the enhanced focus on health and well-being which is now to be found for
students in higher education. In particular, professional organisations such as the ISM and
Musicians’ Union have a role to play in providing such support to meet some of the
specific concerns of teachers outlined above.
9.1.3 CPD and training opportunities for private teachers
Previous research (Zhukov, 2013) suggests that higher education institutions and
conservatoires are not fully exploiting the potential benefits and implications of a portfolio
career to their students; however, progress is being made. For example, as mentioned
above, the Royal College of Music now runs a Professional Portfolio module for students
at undergraduate level. Supported by the work of the Creative Careers Centre, it
encourages students to ‘discover their professional identity, gain hands-on experience
and new skills, develop an entrepreneurial mind-set and build a fulfilling professional
portfolio’ (Royal College of Music, 2018a). Since 2017, the Royal College of Music’s
Professional Portfolio module has included a compulsory teaching element, with the
option for students to work towards an external teaching qualification such as an ABRSM
diploma. Institutions, as communities of practice, have much to offer each other, as well
as the wider music education sector, and best practice can be shared and developed
collectively.
It is also important to note that there has been growth in teacher training for music
educators, for example, the Royal College of Music’s new Master of Education (MEd)
degree. This seeks to develop ‘students' vocational skills by building on their music
educational experience in the profession’, and is aimed at ‘musicians engaged in
education work, such as teachers, animateurs, creative education leaders and facilitators,
ensemble/choir directors and coaches, and professional performers, such as orchestral
players whose work includes educational activities’ (Royal College of Music, 2018b).
Similarly, an MA in Instrumental/Vocal Teaching at the University of York is now in its sixth
year. That said, at this point in time, there appear to be few, if any, clear progression
routes into the profession, which, in itself, presents a challenge, even when considered as
part of a portfolio career.
As highlighted in Chapter 5 (section 5.3), there are increasing numbers of private teachers
wishing to offer lessons which do not fit the traditional one-to-one model, for example,
‘buddy lessons’ or group lessons (Cantan, 2018b; Topham, 2018). Although these have
226
become more ‘fashionable’ of late, from my experience, private teachers often arrange
group sessions on an informal basis. Such alternatives to the one-to-one lesson may
appear to be worthwhile developments. There is the obvious danger that they merely
transmit the same valid knowledge, but in a different way. However, they may offer more
opportunity for social interaction and collaboration. Research has already taken place into
the concept of the learning ensemble (J. Henley, 2009), and this could be built upon in the
private teaching context, where, for example, teachers might wish to expand into offering
group lessons. Moving away from the dominance of one-to-one tuition as a self-contained
entity could offer the opportunity to develop more effective communities of practice.
It was identified at numerous places in the data that there was a lack of training and
development opportunities for private teachers. From my own personal experience, I
would agree with this, and over my 19 years of teaching, I have seen these opportunities
diminish, despite the increasing opportunity for delivering online courses. Whilst many of
the survey respondents referred to the importance of CPD and training, and indeed,
asserted that they engaged in these, it is unclear how this happens in practice.
Whilst developments to CPD have been made, calls continue to be made for the
improvement and development of greater opportunities in this area (All-Party
Parliamentary Group for Music Education et al., 2019). From a private teaching
perspective, I would, however, urge caution on this point. As I explored in Chapter 8, the
danger is that private teachers only partake in those courses which fit within their
definition of valid knowledge, and in that sense, the provision of a greater number of
opportunities does not necessarily counter that. The way CPD and training is offered in
practice should also be considered. Opportunities whereby an institution or organisation
merely transmit to teachers that which they have judged to be valid, feed into the system
which already exists. Consideration should be given to the way in which training and CPD
opportunities facilitate the construction of knowledge. There is a challenge to both
institutions and organisations to reassess their CPD and training provision for private
teachers in the light of some of the outcomes of this research.
Data suggest there is some misunderstanding about what constitutes continuing
professional development; for example, being a member of the Musicians’ Union is, in
itself, not necessarily CPD, whereas engaging with a course offered by them is. I think
there is a subtle distinction to be made here, and I sense that in some cases, in teachers’
quests to appear professional, memberships such as these are being used to indicate
qualification. Reading between the lines in my data suggests this, but I have also seen it
displayed readily online. Advertising their services in a way which suggests teachers are
qualified by virtue of, for example, being members of the Musicians’ Union, could be
227
construed as false advertising. Professional organisations may wish to ensure they take
steps to discourage such practice.
One of the themes which emerged in the data was the perceived need for private teachers
to be competent players, though not necessarily performers of the instrument they taught.
Whilst teachers demonstrated a keenness to take part in CPD, responses did not
necessarily suggest they actively sought to develop their knowledge of and practice in
education. I would suggest that private teachers would benefit from training and CPD
opportunities which contained a greater element of educational theory, related both to
music education, and to education more generally.
9.2 Key recommendations
Accepting that there are many possible outcomes, following discussion above, I present
the following key recommendations as a result of this research:
• Those involved in both music education research and decision-making within the
wider sphere of music education policy, should seek and include the views of
private teachers as a distinct and valued part of the profession;
• The input of private teachers should be actively sought, and researchers and
policymakers should harness the power of the internet and social media to connect
with them;
• Professional organisations should seek to provide support and resources which
address some of the concerns expressed by private teachers in relation to their
health and well-being. Whilst teachers should be encouraged to embrace those
relevant opportunities offered to performers, organisations should recognise that
private teachers, and instrumental teachers more generally, might have specific
needs which are not currently being addressed;
• In relation to the training of instrumental teachers, conservatoires and other higher
education institutions should be encouraged to share and develop best practice
collectively. Progress has been made and resources developed, and institutions
should be encouraged to develop and implement these collaboratively;
• Despite progress in this area, findings suggest that teachers would value more
training specifically in relation to running a business. Whilst higher education
institutions have begun to include such training, professional organisations in
particular could develop this further;
• Institutions, for example, universities and colleges, and organisations such as
exam boards, training providers and professional organisations, should reassess
their provision in light of this research. All should consider the possibilities of
228
developing opportunities which may counter some of the concerns raised in this
project;
• Professional organisations should take steps to discourage members from using
their membership to indicate qualification. The sector more widely should address
concerns raised regarding the potential misunderstanding, and occasionally
misrepresentation of qualifications, memberships, training and professional
development;
• Institutions and training providers should consider developing opportunities which
afford private teachers the opportunity to develop their wider educational
knowledge and practice, in addition to instrument-specific skills;
• With an awareness that being a professional concert soloist may not, for many
students, be the end goal of instrumental learning, teachers should carefully
assess their overall philosophy, aims and objectives. Teachers should consider
how they might both support, and be challenged by, the needs, goals and
aspirations of individual students;
• In response to recent concerns, teachers should evaluate how inclusive and
diverse their lessons are. They should consider how they can embrace students’
musical experiences and cultures which might currently be perceived to reside
outside of the one-to-one lesson environment.
9.3 Limitations of this study
Whilst I believe much valuable data has been gathered as part of this research project, it
is also necessary to recognise its limitations, and in particular, the way those limitations
may impact on outcomes. During the course of this project, I have identified a number of
limitations which I have discussed and critiqued as part of the research process, notably in
Chapter 2. In this final chapter, I summarise those limitations and acknowledge the way in
which these have the potential to influence the overall outcomes of the research.
9.3.1 Research design and methodology
I approached this research from within the interpretivist paradigm, and as discussed in
Chapter 2 (section 2.1), I acknowledge that my own knowledge, beliefs and experience
influenced both the way the research was carried out and how I subsequently interpreted
and discussed the data. Through this research project, I present an interpretation of the
views and beliefs of a particular group of teachers, at a particular moment in time. It is not
possible to generalise as a result of this research, and I do not seek to present the
outcomes as a universal theory. It is a limitation of this study that it presents an
229
interpretation of only one group of teachers, and therefore, it is not possible to compare
and contrast outcomes.
9.3.2 Interviews
I identified a number of limitations in relation to the data collection tools used in both
phase one and phase two of the research. As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.2.1), for
the interviews conducted in phase one, participants were located within a similar
geographical area which has the potential to affect their responses. In retrospect, allowing
interview participants to member-check transcriptions, may have provided an extra layer
of validity to the data, in guarding against what Robson (2015, p. 158) defines as
‘researcher bias’. During the coding and analysis of phase one data, as discussed in
Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), interviews were not transcribed for gesture, action or tone of
voice, all of which may have offered alternative and additional insights into participants’
answers. I acknowledge that the coding process in both phases was influenced by my
own knowledge, beliefs and experience, and a different researcher might have coded in a
different way, leading subsequently to alternative interpretations.
9.3.3 Expansion framework
In Chapter 2 (section 2.2.3), I discuss my decision to embrace the flexible approach to
research design, and to follow up the interviews with an online survey. This expansion of
the framework was not without limitation. Whilst it allayed some of the limitations
encountered with the interviews in phase one such as geographical location, the survey
did not offer the ability to probe respondents’ answers in the same way. Whilst I do not
agree that by expanding the research in this way it counters ‘all threats to validity’
(Robson, 2015, p. 158), it does open up possibilities, and a means to both develop and
challenge existing data.
The danger in making this decision was that, as stated by Robson (2015), a framework or
meaning is applied to what is happening. In the case of my study, I acknowledge that the
interviews conducted in phase one, and their subsequent coding and analysis, influenced
my choice of survey questions. Whilst the aim of the survey was to explore further those
themes identified in phase one, it was also designed in a way as to allow new themes to
emerge. Similarly, the coding procedures employed in both phases allowed for the
emergence of additional and alternative themes. The eventual discussion of results in
Chapters 5-8 is based on data from both phases. Overall, whilst this decision is a
limitation of this study, I felt that particularly, given I was seeking an insight into an under-
researched area of music education, gathering a wider sample of views was beneficial.
230
9.3.4 Survey
Responses in both phrases, and in particular, to the survey, are subject to over- and
under-reporting. As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.1), it is not possible to know how
truthful participants were when answering. It was a particular limitation of the survey
design that unlike the interviews conducted in phase one, it was not possible to probe
deeper into participants’ responses. Outcomes are based on participants’ interpretation
and understanding of the questions. Similarly, as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.1)
my choice of questions, and the options I offered for participants’ answers also influenced
the overall interpretation of results. Whilst the survey reached a wider geographical area
than the interviews, the dataset is primarily UK-based. It is, therefore, not possible to know
from this research how the situation overseas might compare.
Reflecting on the most effective methods for distributing the survey, it is the case that it
most-likely attracted responses from private teachers already actively engaged in online
communities, and as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.1) this influences the results.
Similarly, as highlighted in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6), in order to preserve the complete
dataset, I chose not to undertake Component Analysis, something which had it been
undertaken, may have led to additional or alternative interpretations.
As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.6), I made the decision not to code responses to
every question meaning that results were omitted from the final analysis and discussion.
Firstly, my choice of questions to code affects the outcomes of this research, and indeed,
coding different or additional questions may have enhanced or challenged my
interpretation of data. That said, remaining data provides scope for a number of different
research projects as identified in Chapter 9 (section 9.4) below.
9.3.5 Reliability and validity
The notion of reliability and validity is much contested within the interpretative paradigm.
Some (Golafshani, 2003; Thomas, 2009) have suggested that a focus on the quality of
research is more appropriate. Golafshani (2003) argues that in qualitative research, it is
not possible to view reliability and validity separately. As highlighted in Chapter 2 (section
2.3.1), Thomas (2009) suggests that within the interpretivist paradigm, the emphasis
should be on valuing outcomes as insights into a particular group of people. Brinkmann
and Kvale (2015, p. 282) argue that given the naturalistic nature of such research, there is
a need to balance any measure of reliability and validity with ‘creative innovations’,
something they considered particularly valuable as part of the interview process.
231
When considering the validity and reliability of outcomes, it is necessary to note that this
research is context specific. Therefore, as highlighted in Chapter 2 (section 2.3.1), using
the same data collection tools with another group of people, in a different context, and at a
different point in time, will likely yield different results. Whilst this might be seen as a
limitation, it nevertheless reflects the naturalistic essence of this type of research.
Throughout the research process, I sought continually to reflect on and develop my
practice as a researcher, and to maintain a high level of quality in relation to the tools
used. As discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.1), the use of memos was an important part of
the research process. They not only offered the opportunity reflect on data themselves,
but also the way in which the research was being carried out. The overall discussion of
results is based on data collected in both phases of the research. The subsequent
expansion of the interviews to the survey produced data which both reinforced and
challenged emergent themes. Engagement with both literature and data was an ongoing
and iterative process, again offering means for ongoing reflection. The coding process,
involving several cycles, ensured that data were interrogated on a number of levels.
Whilst bearing in mind the overall limitations of this study as identified in this section,
whilst the outcomes are context specific, they nevertheless offer valuable insights into that
group of people, insights which will provide a foundation for future research, as discussed
in Chapter 9 (section 9.4) below.
9.4 Future research
In this section, I will cover two strands of future research: firstly, research which might
come out of the data gathered, that which I did not analyse as part of this project; and
secondly, research which can expand upon this project. Above all, this research has
interrogated private teachers’ perceptions and understanding of curriculum and pedagogy,
areas not previously explored. It is also worth noting that much of the data gathered can
be applied to one-to-one instrumental teaching generally.
Of the survey data that remain, there is scope for a good deal of further analysis and
discussion, notably, but not exclusively, on the topics of:
• The way private teachers approach and respond to the differing needs and
requirements of children versus adult learners;
• The way in which private teachers view and engage with the wider profession;
• Private teachers’ views on the importance of belonging to a professional
organisation;
232
• Lesson location, for example, teaching from home, or in pupils’ homes, and the
effect this has on private teachers’ practice;
• Perceptions on how private teachers’ feel their teaching has and will change over
time;
• Who and what private teachers’ believe to be the key influences on their teaching.
Using the data already gathered, further development of these research areas would also
support the key stakeholder recommendations mentioned in Chapter 9 (section 9.2)
above.
One of the notable features of existing literature related to one-to-one instrumental
teaching is that it almost exclusively refers to those teaching and learning in higher
education. In contrast, one of the things which is clear from both the interview and survey
data, is that the majority of private teachers are teaching a wide range of ages. Echoing
my own experience, private teachers can often go from teaching over-70s, to under-10s in
the space of an hour. As one teacher said in her interview, in school, she taught pupils
age five to 12, yet privately, she taught pupils from seven to 88. Both Mills (2004) and
Jorgensen (1986) found similar age ranges being covered privately.
In some ways, this is unsurprising, but it is an important distinction to be made between
private teachers and those teaching under the umbrella of an institution. For example,
those teaching one-to-one instrumental lessons in conservatoires and higher education
institutions are likely to be focussed on an 18-21 age group of primarily post-Grade 8 level
pupils, for whom the desired outcome may be a career in music. Similarly, those working
in schools are likely to be teaching a fairly narrow range of ages, and certainly under-18s.
Whilst teachers in both these situations may also be teaching privately, this does, once
again, highlight the very varied nature of the work of a private teacher in terms of ages
and levels taught.
This is also relevant as it highlights the fact that learning theories such as those of Piaget
(1969) were developed with particular age groups in mind, yet private teachers are
teaching many pupils outside of those age ranges. The diversity of learners which private
teachers embrace could be of huge benefit when considering the partnership and
collaboration opportunities found in effective communities of practice. I believe that this
again highlights the unique position that private teachers occupy within the wider
educational landscape. Research into instrumental teaching and its relationship both to
age and ability level would be beneficial in increasing understanding of lessons within a
wider developmental context.
233
It is clear from my study that the voice of the pupil needs greater research. The
practicalities of finding willing pairs of pupils and teachers, plus the ethics involved in this,
posed too great a challenge to cover within the scope of this research project. It is
however true that the need for more research into the role of the teacher has been
previously highlighted (Welch et al., 2004), and it is, in part, due to this, that I have
focussed on this in my own research. That said, whilst more research looking at similar
themes from the perspective of the pupil would be useful, this is not without its own
challenges. With the instrumental teacher often being seen as the ‘expert’ or ‘master
teacher’, this has the potential to influence any answers which pupils might give in
response to such a study, though of course, that in itself, would further highlight the
balance or imbalance of power at play in these lesson interactions. Research which
considers further the nature of teachers’ espoused theories and theories-in-use would, I
think, be hugely worthwhile. Such research may provide a basis by which teachers could
seek to embrace a more collaborative approach.
Previous literature has cited the benefits of student-owned learning, and connected to
that, the need to embrace the notion of partnership and collaboration. Whilst much in the
data links to idea of apprenticeship, not least, through the master-apprentice model, there
is little to suggest that the private lesson embodies the concepts with underpin an effective
community of practice. For the one-to-one teaching scenario to be an effective community
of practice, this would require considerable repositioning of teacher philosophy in order to
challenge those concepts of instrumental teaching traditionally held. If teachers sought to
move away from the traditional master-apprentice model and the current dominance of
behaviourist approaches, they may no longer be the central figure, and thus, notions of
expertise and dominance would be challenged. Further research into teacher identity
would aid such a repositioning of roles within the instrumental lesson.
Through my research I have shed some light on the age and gender profiles of private
teachers. As I stated previously, it is a crude analysis, but the results of my survey
suggest that the ‘average’ private teacher is a female aged between 45 and 54. Research
which examines more closely how people find themselves teaching would be valuable,
particularly in assessing how viable such a career may appear to younger age groups.
Whilst there are almost endless research possibilities, based on the data analysed as part
of this study, I make the following recommendations for future research:
• The current body of literature should be expanded to include, in addition to
conservatoires and higher education institutions, a greater focus on instrumental
teaching in different contexts;
234
• Research which seeks to explore the nature of instrumental teaching in relation to
age and ability level of pupil would place such lessons in a wider developmental
context;
• In relation to this, despite an awareness that private teachers teach a wide range
of age groups, responses tended to focus on children. Adult music learning is
already an area identified as requiring further research (Shirley, 2015), and I would
suggest my study reinforces that;
• The connection between teachers’ espoused theories and theories-in-use warrants
greater research, including observing these in practice;
• Research which considers the identity of private teachers, and potentially their
pupils, may prove useful in considering how roles may need to be repositioned in
order to create more effective communities of practice;
• Given the age profiles of teachers surveyed in my study, it would be valuable to
conduct research into whether the private teaching profession is seen as offering a
viable career choice for younger age groups;
9.5 Final thoughts
I believe that there is a much wider debate to be had surrounding the role and purpose of
instrumental music learning. In many ways, this is part of an ongoing and crucial debate
about the value and purpose of music education. This is even more pertinent as the place
and value of music continues to be challenged in state schools and government-funded
hubs (All-Party Parliamentary Group for Music Education et al., 2019; Daubney & Mackrill,
2018). As Väkevä (2012, p. 16) argues in Deweyan terms:
‘In school curricula, the arts are similarly conferred the status of leisure activities
and perceived as largely decorative adornments. Schools thus promote
educational practices that do not recognise the central, transformative role of
consummatory experiences in human life.’
If the purpose of learning an instrument is seen to be that of studying works from the
Western Classical Tradition, those of the ‘great masters’, with the aim that pupils will
eventually be able to perform these works as concert soloists themselves, then the current
approach may be effective. If, however, music is seen in a much broader sense, one in
which the act of making-music, the experience of learning, is as valuable as the pieces
themselves being studied, then a significant shift in outlook and philosophical positioning
is required.
From my own experience as a private teacher, the reality is that very few pupils will go on
to study music or seek to be a professional musician. On the current basis, cultural
235
practice deems those pupils to be outside of the ‘system’. Music has the potential to be
both life-enhancing, and life-affirming. It has the potential to offer learners a skill which
they might enjoy and develop for the rest of their lives. The trouble is, that although this is
frequently used as an argument to justify music education and instrumental learning, data
suggest this concept can fall outside of private teachers’ pedagogies. Just as Bernstein
(1975, pp. 82–83) found, with membership and subject loyalty being established early, for
those who do not progress beyond the novice stages, and indeed, those who do not, or
do not wish to conform to a system, this ‘can often be wounding, and sometimes may
even be seen as meaningless’.
My research suggests that private teachers appear unconscious and uncritical in their
practice, and as a result of that, the one-to-one lesson, the community of practice of which
they are a part, does not function at as high a level as it might. Despite this, the private
teachers who took part in my study demonstrated a clear passion for music and music
education. As discussed previously (see Chapter 3, section 3.2.2, and Chapter 8, sections
8.3.4 and 8.5), this was apparent in both phases of the study. Their willingness to reflect
on their practice and generosity in responding to the questions posed suggests there is
much which could be harnessed and developed in the future. Teachers demonstrated a
clear commitment to both their teaching and their students. Indeed, such was their
commitment to their students, this often resulted in a sense of care and concern which
extended well beyond the lessons themselves. I believe that the overriding sense of
commitment, generosity and care demonstrated by participants in this research study
augurs well for the future.
236
References
Abramo, M.-N. (2014). The Construction of Instrumental Music Teacher Identity. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 202, 51–69.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.202.0051
ABRSM. (2004). Certificate of Teaching CT ABRSM Prospectus from 2004 United
Kingdom Hong Kong and Singapore. London: ABRSM.
ABRSM. (2014). Certificate details. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from
https://onlineforms.abrsm.ac.uk/uk/entryForm_SpecialVisits.asp?FormType=Practical
&SectionCode=2&EntryFormID=1641580&ExaminationYear=2016&Period=B&Regio
nNumberCode=
ABRSM. (2017). Exam regulation and UCAS points. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from
https://gb.abrsm.org/en/our-exams/information-and-regulations/exam-regulation-and-
ucas-points/
Adams, R. (2017). Proportion of students taking arts subjects falls to lowest level in
decade. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/21/proportion-of-students-taking-
arts-subjects-falls-to-lowest-level-in-decade
AGCAS Editors. (2016). Job profiles: Private music teacher. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/private-music-teacher
All-Party Parliamentary Group for Music Education, ISM, & University of Sussex. (2019).
Music Education: State of the Nation. Retrieved February 4, 2019, from
https://www.ism.org/images/images/State-of-the-Nation-Music-Education-WEB.pdf
Allan, J. (2013). Foucault and his acolytes: Discourse, power and ethics. In M. Murphy
(Ed.), Social Theory and Education Research (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge.
Alsaawi, A. (2014). A critical review of qualitative interviews. European Journal of
Business and Social Sciences, 3(4), 149–156.
https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819536
Andrews, K. (2013). Standing “on our own two feet”: A comparison of teacher-directed
and group learning in an extra-curricular instrumental group. British Journal of Music
Education, 30(1), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000460
Anonymous. (2016). The secret life of a singing teacher: it’s like being a cheap therapist.
Retrieved June 5, 2018, from The Guardian website:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/secret-life-singing-teacher-
therapist
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional
Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Aspin, D. (2000). Lifelong Learning: The mission of arts education in the learning
237
community of the 21st century. Music Education Research, 2(1), 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800050004440
Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2016). Understanding & Using Educational Theories. London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough?
Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/
Ball, S. (2013). Foucaut, Power, and Education. London: Routledge.
Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2016). Introduction to Education Studies. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Barton, D. (2014). Book Review: Music Education in the 21st Century in the United
Kingdom: Achievements, analysis and aspirations. Educate~, 14(3), 60–61.
Barton, D. (2015). The autonomy of private instrumental teachers: its effect on valid
knowledge construction, curriculum design, and quality of teaching and learning.
Poster presented at the UCL Institute of Education Doctoral School Poster
Conference, London.
Barton, D. (2016). The control of choice, and the choice of control in private instrumental
teaching. Presentation at the Music Education and Music Psychology Conference,
University of York, York.
Barton, D. (2017). The control of choice, and the choice of control in private instrumental
teaching. Presentation for undergraduate music education students at The University
of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Baughman, M. (2015). An Examination of Methods Used to Teach Practice Strategies in
the College Voice Studio. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123315593325
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Bennett, D., & Bridgstock, R. (2014). The urgent need for career preview: Student
expectations and graduate realities in music and dance. International Journal of
Music Education, 33(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761414558653
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology
of Language, Vol. 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, Codes and Control: Volume 3, Towards a Theory of
Educational Transmissions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2013). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
238
Bjøntegaard, B. J. (2015). A combination of one-to-one teaching and small group teaching
in higher music education in Norway - A good model for teaching? British Journal of
Music Education, 32(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171400014X
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Book 1: Cognitive domain.
London: Longman.
Bowles, C. L. (2010). Teachers of Adult Music Learners: An Assessment of
Characteristics and Instructional Practices, Preparation, and Needs. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 50–59.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361762
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Pscyhology, 3(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bridgewater Multimedia Ltd. (2010). Welcome to MusicTeachers.co.uk! Retrieved May 21,
2014, from https://www.musicteachers.co.uk
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Brown, C. A. (1994). A Review of Research in Private Piano Instruction. Southeastern
Journal of Music Education, 6, 88–106.
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burnard, P., & Dragovic, T. (2015). Collaborative creativity in instrumental group music
learning as a site for enhancing pupil wellbeing. Cambridge Journal of Education,
45(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.934204
Burwell, K. (2005). A degree of independence: teachers’ approaches to instrumental
tuition in a university college. British Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 199–215.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051705006601
Burwell, K. (2012). Studio-Based Instrumental Learning. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing
Limited.
Burwell, K. (2013). Apprenticeship in music: A contextual study for instrumental teaching
and learning. International Journal of Music Education, 31(3), 276–291.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411434501
Burwell, K. (2016a). Dissonance in the studio: An exploration of tensions within the
apprenticeship setting in higher education music. International Journal of Music
Education, 34(4), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415574124
Burwell, K. (2016b). “She did miracles for me”: An investigation of dissonant studio
practices in higher education music. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 466–480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615576263
Burwell, K., & Shipton, M. (2013). Strategic approaches to practice: an action research
project. British Journal of Music Education, 30(3), 329–345.
239
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000132
Cain, T. (1990). Some Principles and Problems connected with INSET Provision in Music
Education. British Journal of Music Education, 7(3), 249–256.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700007853
Camlin, D., & Zesersen, K. (2018). Becoming a Community Musician: A Situated
Approach to Curriculum. In B.-L. Bartleet & L. Higgins (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Community Music (pp. 1–27).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219505.013.7
Cantan, N. (2018a). Gamifying music instruction part 2: flipping the fun-work balance.
Retrieved September 17, 2018, from https://colourfulkeys.ie/gamifying-music-
instruction-part-2-flipping-fun-work-balance/
Cantan, N. (2018b). How to plan and introduce buddy lessons in your studio. Retrieved
June 4, 2018, from https://colourfulkeys.ie/plan-introduce-buddy-lessons-studio/
Carey, G., Bridgstock, R., Taylor, P., McWilliam, E., & Grant, C. (2013). Characterising
one-to-one conservatoire teaching: Some implications of a quantitative analysis.
Music Education Research, 15(3), 357–368.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.824954
Carey, G., & Grant, C. (2015). Teacher and student perspectives on one-to-one
pedagogy: Practices and possibilities. British Journal of Music Education, 32(1), 5–
22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051714000084
Carey, G., Harrison, S., & Dwyer, R. (2017). Encouraging reflective practice in
conservatoire students: a pathway to autonomous learning? Music Education
Research, 19(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1238060
Cathcart, S. (2011). The Piano Survey: Preliminary Analysis and Results. Retrieved April
3, 2016, from http://crosseyedpianist.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-piano-survey-
preliminary-analysis-report.pdf
Cathcart, S. (2013). The UK Piano Teacher in the Twenty-First Century: Exploring
Common Practices, Expertise, Values, Attitudes and Motivation to Teach.
Unpublished PhD thesis. London: University of London, Institute of Education.
CDMT. (2018). Membership. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://cdmt.org.uk/about-
us/membership
Chappell, S. (1999). Developing the complete pianist: a study of the importance of a
whole-brain approach to piano teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 16(3),
253–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000340
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cheng, E. K.-W., & Durrant, C. (2007). An investigation into effective string teaching in a
variety of learning contexts: a single case study. British Journal of Music Education,
24(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051707007413
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. Abingdon:
240
Routledge.
Colombo, B., & Antonietti, A. (2017). The Role of Metacognitive Strategies in Learning
Music: A Multiple Case Study. British Journal of Music Education, 34(1), 95–113.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051716000267
Cope, P. (1998). Knowledge, meaning and ability in musical instrument teaching and
learning. British Journal of Music Education, 15(3), 263–270.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700003946
Creech, A. (2006). Dynamics, harmony, and discord: A systems analysis of teacher-pupil-
parent interaction in instrumental learning. Unpublished PhD thesis. London:
University of London, Institute of Education.
Creech, A. (2010). The music studio. In S. Hallam & A. Creech (Eds.), Music Education in
the 21st Century in the United Kingdom: Achievements, analysis and aspirations (pp.
295–313). London: Institute of Education (IOE) Press.
Creech, A., & Gaunt, H. (2012). The Changing Face of Individual Instrumental Tuition:
Value, Purpose, and Potential. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Music Education Volume 1 (pp. 1–21).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.013.0042
Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2003). Parent–teacher–pupil interactions in instrumental music
tuition: a literature review. British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 29–44.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702005272
Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2010). Interpersonal interaction within the violin teaching studio:
The influence of interpersonal dynamics on outcomes for teachers. Psychology of
Music, 38(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609351913
Creech, A., & Hallam, S. (2011). Learning a musical instrument: the influence of
interpersonal interaction on outcomes for school-aged pupils. Psychology of Music,
39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610370222
Creech, A., Papageorgi, I., Duffy, C., Morton, F., Haddon, E., Potter, J., … Welch, G.
(2008). From music student to professional: the process of transition. British Journal
of Music Education, 25(3), 315–331.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265051708008127
Daniel, R. (2006). Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: video
analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Education
Research, 8(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800600779519
Daniel, R., & Bowden, J. (2013). The intermediate piano stage: exploring teacher
perspectives and insights. British Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 245–260.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000041
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFarmer.
Daubney, A., & Mackrill, D. (2018). Changes in Secondary Music Curriculum Provision
over time 2012-16. Retrieved from https://www.ism.org/images/files/Changes-in-
241
Secondary-Music-Curriculum-Provision-2012-16_Summary-final.pdf
Daugherty, J. F. (1996). Why Music Matters: The Cognitive Personalism of Reimer and
Elliott. Retrieved August 18, 2018, from Australian Journal of Music Education
website: http://cmed.faculty.ku.edu/private/daugherty.html
Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1998). Characteristics of
Music Teachers and the Progress of Young Instrumentalists. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 46(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3345766
Davidson, J. W., & Scutt, S. (1999). Instrumental learning with exams in mind: a case
study investigating teacher, student and parent interactions before, during and after a
music examination. British Journal of Music Education, 16(1), 79–95.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000169
Department for Education. (2013). Music programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2.
National curriculum in England. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/23903
5/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf
Department for Education. (2018a). Explore my options. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from
https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/explore-my-options
Department for Education. (2018b). Guidance: English Baccalaureate (EBacc). Retrieved
January 7, 2019, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-
baccalaureate-ebacc/english-baccalaureate-ebacc
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as Experience. New York: Perigee Books.
Duke, R. A. (1999). Teacher and Student Behavior in Suzuki String Lessons: Results from
the International Research Symposium on Talent Education. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 47(4), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345485
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is Qualitative Interviewing? London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Elliott, D. J. (1993). Music as Knowledge. In E. R. Jorgensen (Ed.), Philosopher, Teacher,
Musician: Perspectives on Music Education (pp. 21–40). Illinois: Illini Books.
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Elliott, D. J. (2005). Introduction. In D. J. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial Music Education: Reflections
and Dialogues (pp. 3–18). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Elliott, D. J. (2012). Music Education Philosophy. In G. E. McPherson & G. Welch (Eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1 (pp. 1–29).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.013.0005
English Oxford Living Dictionaries. (2018). learning. Retrieved July 27, 2018, from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learning
EPTA UK. (2016). About. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from
http://www.pianoteacherscourse.org/about/
242
Evans, D. (2014). Teachers should not be guides or experts, just “friends.” Retrieved April
13, 2014, from Times Educational Supplement website:
https://www.tes.com/news/teachers-should-not-be-guides-or-experts-just-friends
Evans, P., & Bonneville-Roussy, A. (2015). Self-determined motivation for practice in
university music students. Psychology of Music, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615610926
Fautley, M. (2010). Assessment in Music Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Federation of Music Services, Royal College of Music, & National Association for Music
Educators. (2002). A Common Approach 2002: An Instrumental/Vocal Curriculum
(Curriculum Binder). Harlow: Faber Music Ltd.
Finney, J. (2016). Music Education in England, 1950-2010: The Child-Centred
Progressive Tradition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Flanagan, C. (1998). Applying Psychology to Early Child Development. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Folkestad, G. (2006). Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs formal and
informal ways of learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23(2), 135–145.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051706006887
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning.
In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 8–38).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin
Books.
Fredrickson, W. E. (2007). Music Majors’ Attitudes Toward Private Lesson Teaching After
Graduation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(4), 326–343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408317514
Fredrickson, W. E., Geringer, J. M., & Pope, D. A. (2013). Attitudes of String Teachers
and Performers toward Preparation for and Teaching of Private Lessons. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 61(2), 217–232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413485245
Fredrickson, W. E., Moore, C., & Gavin, R. (2013). Attitudes of select music performance
faculty toward students teaching private lessons after graduation: A USA pilot study.
International Journal of Music Education, 31(3), 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413488712
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
Gane, P. (1996). Instrumental teaching and the National Curriculum: a possible
partnership? British Journal of Music Education, 13(1), 49–65.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700002941
Garnett, J. (2013). Beyond a constructivist curriculum: a critique of competing paradigms
in music education. British Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 161–175.
243
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000575
Gaunt, H. (2008). One-to-one tuition in a conservatoire: the perceptions of instrumental
and vocal students. Psychology of Music, 36(2), 215–245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609339467
Georgii-Hemming, E., & Westvall, M. (2010). Music education – a personal matter?
Examining the current discourses of music education in Sweden. British Journal of
Music Education, 27(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051709990179
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Gibbs, L. (1993). Private Lives: Report on the Survey of Private Music Teachers and their
Professional Development and Training. London: Goldsmiths’ College, University of
London.
Gilbert, E. (2015). Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goddard, E. (2002). The relationship between the piano teacher in private practice and
music in the National Curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 19(3), 243–253.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000335
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Gooding, L., & Standley, J. M. (2011). Musical Development and Learning Characteristics
of Students. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123311418481
Goodson, I. (2001). Basil Bernstein, 1925-2000. In J. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty Modern Thinkers
on Education: From Piaget to the Present. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gredler, M. E. (2005). Learning and Instruction: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Green, L. (2005, March). The Music Curriculum as Lived Experience: Children’s “Natural”
Music-Learning Processes. Music Educators Journal, 27–32.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Haddon, E. (2009). Instrumental and vocal teaching: how do music students learn to
teach? British Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 57–70.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051708008279
Hallam, S. (1998). Instrumental Teaching: A Practical Guide to Better Teaching and
Learning. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Hallam, S. (2001). The development of metacognition in musicians: Implications for
education. British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051701000122
Hallam, S. (2015). The Power of Music: a research synthesis of the impact of actively
244
making music on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and
young people. London: Music Education Council.
Hallam, S., & Bautista, A. (2012). Processes of Instrumental Learning: The Development
of Musical Expertise. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1 (pp. 1–24).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.013.0040
Hallam, S., Creech, A., McQueen, H., Varvarigou, M., & Gaunt, H. (2016). The facilitator
of community music-making with older learners: Characteristics, Motivations and
challenges. International Journal of Music Education, 34(1), 19–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415617039
Hargreaves, D. J. (1986). The Developmental Pscyhology of Music. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1996). The Development of Artistic and Musical Competence. In J. A.
Sloboda & I. Deliège (Eds.), Musical Beginnings: Origins and Development of
Musical Competence (pp. 145–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hargreaves, D. J., & Galton, M. (1992). Aesthetic Learning: Psychological Theory and
Educational Practice. In B. Reimer & R. A. Smith (Eds.), National Society for the
Study of Education Yearbook on the Arts in Education (pp. 124–140). Chicago:
NSSE.
Harris, P. (2012). The Virtuoso Teacher: the inspirational guide for instrumental and
singing teachers. London: Faber Music Ltd.
Harris, P. (2014). Simultaneous Learning: The definitive guide. Harlow: Faber Music Ltd.
Henley, D. (2011). Music Education in England: A Review by Darren Henley for the
Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Comparative Education Review. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/music-education-in-england-a-review-
by-darren-henley-for-the-department-for-education-and-the-department-for-culture-
media-and-sport
Henley, J. (2009). The Learning Ensemble: Musical learning through participation.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham: Birmingham City University, The Faculty of
Education, Law and Social Sciences.
Henley, J. (2018). Music, Emotion, and Learning. In P. Gouk, J. Kennaway, J. Prins, & W.
Thomählen (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Music, Mind and Wellbeing:
Historical and Scientific Perspectives (pp. 277–290). New York: Routledge.
Heslett, C. (2018). Private tutors “should face DBS criminal record checks.” Retrieved July
17, 2018, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44847114
Higgins, L. D. (2006). Boundary-Walkers: Context and Concepts of Community Music.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Limerick: University of Limerick.
Hill, L. (2017). Minister rejects call for changes to music hub funding. Retrieved July 15,
245
2018, from https://www.artsprofessional.co.uk/news/minister-rejects-call-changes-
music-hub-funding
Holmes, I. (2006). Studio Music Teachers and Public Music Examinations: The Quality
Interface. Unpublished PhD thesis. Queensland: James Cook University.
Holt, J. (1991). Never Too Late. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Hopson, B., & Ledger, K. (2011). And What Do You Do? 10 Steps to Creating a Portfolio
Career. London: A & C Black Publishers Ltd.
Huhtinen-Hildén, L., & Pitt, J. (2018). Taking a Learner-Centred Approach to Music
Education: Pedagogical Pathways. Abingdon: Routledge.
Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2018). Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists...In Their
Own Words. Abingdon: Routledge.
ISM. (2015). Protect Music Education. Retrieved October 2, 2016, from
http://www.protectmusiceducation.org
ISM. (2016a). Fees for private music tuition: our survey results. Retrieved May 5, 2016,
from http://www.ism.org/advice/music-teacher-fees
ISM. (2016b). ISM Music Directory. Retrieved May 5, 2016, from
http://musicdirectory.ism.org/cdirectoryadvancedsearch.aspx
ISM. (2018a). Consultation on the future of music education. London: Incorporated
Society of Musicians.
ISM. (2018b). ISM Registered Private Teacher status and DBS checks. Retrieved May 6,
2018, from https://www.ism.org/advice/registered-private-teacher-dbs
ISM. (2018c). What is the EBacc? Retrieved July 15, 2018, from
https://www.baccforthefuture.com/
Jacobi, B. S. (2005). ACCELERANDO! Picking Up the Pace in Our Private Teaching.
American Music Teacher, 55(1), 34–38.
Jarvis, M., & Chandler, E. (2001). Angles on Child Psyhology. Cheltenham: Nelson
Thorne.
Jeffreys, B. (2018). Creative subjects being squeezed, schools tell BBC. Retrieved July
15, 2018, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42862996
Johansson, K. (2013). Undergraduate students’ ownership of musical learning: Obstacles
and options in one-to-one teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 30(2), 277–
295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000120
Johnston, M. (2001). Constructing Ourselves: The Beginning of an Evolving Philosophy.
In B. Rogoff, C. G. Turkanis, & L. Bartlett (Eds.), Learning Together: Children and
Adults in a School Community (pp. 21–32). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Jones, B. D., & Parkes, K. A. (2010). The Motivation of Undergraduate Music Students:
The Impact of Identification and Talent Beliefs on Choosing a Career in Music
Education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 19(2), 41–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083709351816
246
Jorgensen, E. R. (1986). Aspects of Private Piano Teacher Decision-Making in London,
England. Psychology of Music, 14, 111–129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735686142003
Jorgensen, E. R. (2015). Intersecting Social Justice and Music Education. In C. Benedict,
P. Schmidt, G. Spruce, & P. Woodford (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Social
Justice in Music Education (pp. 1–25).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199356157.013.3
Jørgensen, H. (2000). Student learning in higher instrumental education: who is
responsible? British Journal of Music Education, 17(1), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700000164
Jørgensen, H. (2002). Instrumental Performance Expertise and Amount of Practice
among Instrumental Students in a Conservatoire. Music Education Research, 4(1),
105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800220119804
Kastner, J. D. (2014). Exploring Informal Music Learning in a Professional Development
Community of Music Teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, (202), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.202.0071
Kenny, A. (2014). Practice through partnership: Examining the theoretical framework and
development of a “community of musical practice.” International Journal of Music
Education, 32(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515802
Kenny, A. (2016). Communities of Musical Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kite, C. (1990). Training Music Students for a Career in Instrumental Teaching: A
Conservatoire’s Point of View. British Journal of Music Education, 7(9), 263–267.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700007877
Klingenstein, B. G. (2009). The Independent Piano Teacher’s Studio Handbook.
Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corporation.
Kooistra, L. (2016). Informal music education: The nature of a young child’s engagement
in an individual piano lesson setting. Research Studies in Music Education, 38(1),
115–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X15609800
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: toward a more
holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3687(2013)0000019015
Küpers, E., Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2014). “Look closely at what I’m doing!”
Scaffolding in individual string lessons: Two case studies. International Journal of
Music Education, 32(3), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413516064
Küpers, E., Van Dijk, M., Van Geert, P., & McPherson, G. E. (2015). A mixed-methods
approach to studying co-regulation of student autonomy through teacher-student
interactions in music lessons. Psychology of Music, 43(3), 333–358.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613503180
Lambert, D., & Lines, D. (2000). Monitoring and Assessment: Learning about Students
247
and Measuring their Achievements. London: Falmer Press.
Lamentation, K. (2015). Now that we are in October and well into a new academic year,
has anyone found that they have had a lot more people than usual, ringing up about
piano lessons? Retrieved October 3, 2015, from
https://www.facebook.com/groups/piano.network.UK/1053207581370557/?comment
_id=1053458084678840¬if_t=group_comment_follow
Lamont, A. (1998). The Development of Cognitive Representations of Musical Pitch.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Latukefu, L., & Ginsborg, J. (2018). Understanding what we mean by portfolio training in
music. British Journal of Music Education, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051718000207
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
LCM Examinations. (2017). European qualifications framework. Retrieved December 27,
2017, from https://lcme.uwl.ac.uk/exams/european-qualifications-framework
Lehmann, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for Musicians:
Understanding and Acquiring the Skills. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Lennon, M. (1996). Teacher Thinking: A Qualitative Approach to the Study of Piano
Teaching. Unpublished PhD thesis. London: Univesity of London, Institute of
Education.
Lennon, M., & Reed, G. (2012). Instrumental and vocal teacher education: competences,
roles and curricula. Music Education Research, 14(3), 285–308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.685462
Lewin, C. (2011). Understanding and Describing Quantitative Data. In B. Somekh & C.
Lewin (Eds.), Theory and Methods in Social Research (pp. 220–230). London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Liebman, I. (2005). Your teaching career. In Faber Music Ltd & Trinity College London
(Eds.), The Music Teacher’s Handbook: The Complete Resource for All Instrumental
and Singing Teachers (pp. 86–94). Harlow: Faber Music Ltd.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic Controversies,
Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences, Revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 97–128).
California: Sage Publications Ltd.
Mackworth-Young, L. (1990a). Pupil-Centred Learning in Piano Lessons: An Evaluated
Action-Research Programme Focusing on the Psychology of the Individual.
Psychology of Music, 18, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735690181006
Mackworth-Young, L. (1990b, April). Pupil Power: Are your pupils really enjoying
themselves? Music Teacher.
Macmillan, J. (2004). Learning the piano: a study of attitudes to parental involvement.
248
British Journal of Music Education, 21(3), 295–311.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051704005807
Major, A. (1996). Refraining curriculum design. British Journal of Music Education, 13(3),
183–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700003223
Mark, S. (2007). An investigation into the effect of choice on children’s affective and
cognitive responses to musical learning. Unpublished MA thesis. Reading: The
University of Reading, Institute of Education.
Marshall, K. (2018, July). Orchestral Manoeuvres. Music Teacher, 8.
Mawer, D. (1999). Bridging the divide: embedding voice-leading analysis in string
pedagogy and performance. British Journal of Music Education, 16(2), 179–195.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505179900025X
McCarthy, M. (2017). Creating a Framework for Music Making and Leisure : Max Kaplan
Leads the Way. In R. Mantie & G. D. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music
Making and Leisure (pp. 1–22).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190244705.013.13
McCormick, R., & Murphy, P. (2008). Curriculum: The Case for a Focus on Learning. In P.
Murphy & K. Hall (Eds.), Learning and Practice: Agency and Identities (pp. 3–18).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
McCullough, E. D. (2006). “I don’t know anything about music”: An exploration of primary
teachers’ thinking about music in education. Unpublished PhD thesis. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Northumbria University, School of Health, Community and Education
Studies.
McPhail, G. J. (2013). Developing student autonomy in the one-to-one music lesson.
International Journal of Music Education, 31(2), 160–172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413486407
Mills, J. (2004). Working in music: the conservatoire professor. British Journal of Music
Education, 21(2), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051704005698
Mills, J. (2007). Instrumental Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, J., & Smith, J. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about effective instrumental teaching in
schools and higher education. British Journal of Music Education, 20(1), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702005260
Mitchell, P., & Ziegler, F. (2007). Fundamentals of Development: The psychology of
childhood. Hove: Psychology Press.
MMA. (2015). Join Us. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.mma-online.org.uk/join-us/
Moore, A. (2012). Teaching and Learning: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Morgan, C. (1998). Instrumental Music Teaching and Learning: A Life History Approach.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Exeter: University of Exeter, Faculty of Education.
MTNA. (2016). History: The Facts About MTNA: A Quick Reference Guide to Your
249
Professional Association. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from http://www.mtna.org/about-
mtna/history/
Musical Impact. (2018). Healthy Conservatoires Network. Retrieved November 1, 2018,
from http://musicalimpact.org/network/
Musicians’ Union. (2012). The Working Musician. Retrieved from
https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Files/Reports/Industry/The-Working-Musician-
report
Musicians’ Union. (2018). Musicians’ Union Research into the State of Music Education in
the UK. Retrieved September 8, 2018, from
https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2018/Jun/Musicians-Union-
Research-into-the-State-of-Music
Nafisi, J. (2013). Gesture and body-movement as teaching and learning tools in the
classical voice lesson: a survey into current practice. British Journal of Music
Education, 30(3), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000551
Narita, F. M. (2015). Informal learning in action: the domains of music teaching and their
pedagogic modes. Music Education Research, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2015.1095866
National Children’s Orchestras of Great Britain. (2018a). About NCO. Retrieved October
16, 2018, from https://www.nco.org.uk/about/about-nco
National Children’s Orchestras of Great Britain. (2018b). Can I Join NCO? Retrieved
October 16, 2018, from https://www.nco.org.uk/join-in/can-i-join-nco-
National Youth Orchestras of Great Britain. (2018). Who Can Apply? Retrieved October
16, 2018, from https://www.nyo.org.uk/who-can-join
Nerland, M. (2007). One-to-one teaching as cultural practice: two case studies from an
academy of music. Music Education Research, 9(3), 399–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800701587761
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis:
Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Nye, R. D. (1979). What Is B.F. Skinner Really Saying? Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Office for National Statistics. (2014). Table P04 2011 Census: Usual resident population
by five-year age group, local authorities in England and Wales. Retrieved April 7,
2014, from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/pop
ulationestimates/datasets/2011censuspopulationandhouseholdestimatesforenglanda
ndwales
Oksala, J. (2007). How to Read Foucault. London: Granta.
Parkes, K. A., & Daniel, R. (2013). Motivations impacting upon music instrument teachers’
250
decisions to teach and perform in higher education. British Journal of Music
Education, 30(3), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051713000193
Parkes, K. A., Daniel, R., West, T., & Gaunt, H. (2015). Applied music studio teachers in
higher education: Exploring the impact of identification and talent on career
satisfaction. International Journal of Music Education , 33(3), 372–385.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415581281
Partington, J. S. (2017). The problematics of partnership between the primary class
teacher and the visiting musician: power and hierarchy in the pursuit of dialogic
relationship. Unpublished PhD thesis. Newcastle: Newcastle University, School of
Arts and Cultures.
Paynter, J. (1992). Sound & Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paynter, J., & Aston, P. (1970). Sound and Silence: Classroom Projects in Creative Music.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Persson, R. S. (1994). Control before shape - on mastering the clarinet: A case study on
commonsense teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 11(3), 223–238.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700002187
Persson, R. S. (1996). Brilliant performers as teachers: a case study of commonsense
teaching in a conservatoire setting. International Journal of Music Education, 28, 25–
36. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149602800103
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.
Purser, D. (2005). Performers as teachers: exploring the teaching approaches of
instrumental teachers in conservatoires. British Journal of Music Education, 22(3),
287–298. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051705006546
Rakena, T. O., Airini, & Brown, D. (2016). Success for All: Eroding the culture of power in
the one-to-one teaching and learning context. International Journal of Music
Education, 34(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415590365
Reid, A. (2001). Variation in the Ways that Instrumental and Vocal Students Experience
Learning Music. Music Education Research, 3(1), 25–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800124473
Reid, L. A. (1974). The Arts as a unique form of knowledge. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 4(3), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764740040306
Reimer, B. (1970). A Philosophy of Music Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reimer, B. (1989). A Philosophy of Music Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Renshaw, P. (1986). Towards the Changing Face of the Conservatoire Curriculum. British
Journal of Music Education, 3(1), 79–90.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700005143
Richelle, M. N. (1993). B.F. Skinner: A reappraisal. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robinson, T. (2010). How Popular Musicians Teach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Sheffield:
251
The University of Sheffield, Department of Music.
Robinson, T. (2012). Popular musicians and instrumental teachers: the influence of
informal learning on teaching strategies. British Journal of Music Education, 29(3),
359–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051712000162
Robson, C. (2015). Real World Research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Roesler, R. A. (2016). Independence Pending: Teacher Behaviors Preceding Learner
Problem Solving. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416672858
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in a Social Context.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Royal Academy of Dance. (2018). Pathway to RAD Registered Teacher Status (RTS).
Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.royalacademyofdance.org/study/pathway-
to-rad-registered-teacher-status-rts
Royal College of Music. (2018a). Bachelor of Music. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from
https://www.rcm.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/bmus/
Royal College of Music. (2018b). Master of Education. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from
https://www.rcm.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/med/
Rumiantsev, T. W., Maas, A., & Admiraal, W. (2017). Collaborative learning in two vocal
conservatoire courses. Music Education Research, 19(4), 371–383.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1249363
Scott, D. (2008). Critical Essays on Major Curriculum Theorists. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shirley, R. (2015). “You’re never too old for music!” Online discourses of adult music
learners, a corpus-based study. Unpublished MA thesis. Lancaster: The University of
Lancaster, Department of Linguistics and English Language.
Siebenaler, D. J. (1997). Analysis of Teacher-Student Interactions in the Piano Lessons of
Adults and Children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 6–20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3345462
Sink, P. E. (2002). Behavioral Research on Direct Music Instruction. In R. Colwell & C.
Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and
Learning (pp. 315–326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1936). The Behaviour of Organisms: An experimental analysis. Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
Skjott Linneberg, M., & Korsgaad, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding
the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
Sloboda, J. A. (2008). Emotion, Functionality and the Everyday Experience of Music:
Where Does Music Education Fit? In P. Murphy & R. McCormick (Eds.), Knowledge
and Practice: Representations and Identities (pp. 74–85). Milton Keynes: The Open
University.
252
Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Somekh, B., Burman, E., Delamont, S., Meyer, J., Payne, M., & Thorpe, R. (2011).
Research in the Social Sciences. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Theory and
Methods in Social Research (Second Edition) (pp. 2–15). London: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Stevens, A. (2018, July). Development and recognition. Music Teacher, 22–24.
Swanwick, K. (1988). Music, Mind, and Education. London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K. (1993). Music Curriculum Development and the Concept of Features. In E.
R. Jorgensen (Ed.), Philosopher, Teacher, Musician: Perspectives on Music
Education (pp. 144–162). Illinois: Illini Books.
Swanwick, K. (1994). Musical Knowledge: Intuition, Analysis and Music Education.
London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K. (1996). A Basis for Music Education. London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K. (1999). Teaching Music Musically. London: Routledge.
Swanwick, K., & Tillman, J. (1986). The sequence of musical development. British Journal
of Music Education, 3(3), 305–339.
Taylor, A., & Hallam, S. (2011). From leisure to work: amateur musicians taking up
instrumental or vocal teaching as a second career. Music Education Research, 13(3),
307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2011.603044
Teague, A., & Smith, G. D. (2015). Portfolio careers and work-life balance among
musicians: An initial study into implications for higher music education. British
Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 177–193.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051715000121
The Tutors’ Association. (2017). How To Choose The Right Tutor For Your Child.
Retrieved May 6, 2018, from http://thetutorsassociation.org.uk/node/232
The Tutors’ Association. (2018). Welcome. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from
http://thetutorsassociation.org.uk
Thomas, G. (2009). How to do your Research Project. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Thoutenhoofd, E. D., & Pirrie, A. (2015). From self-regulation to learning to learn:
observations on the construction of self and learning. British Education Research
Journal, 41(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3128
Topham, T. (2018). Teaching group piano, classes and labs. Retrieved June 4, 2018, from
https://timtopham.com/teaching-group-piano-classes-and-labs/
Trinity College London. (2017). Diplomas in Music: Performance and Teaching, 2009–
2018. London: Trinity College London.
Trinity College London. (2018). Level 4 Certificate for Music Educators. Retrieved May 6,
2018, from http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/site/?id=2988
Upitis, R., Abrami, P. C., Brook, J., Boese, K., & King, M. (2017). Characteristics of
253
independent music teachers. Music Education Research, 19(2), 169–194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1204277
Upitis, R., Abrami, P. C., Brook, J., & King, M. (2016). Parental involvement in children’s
independent music lessons. Music Education Research, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1202220
Upitis, R., & Brook, J. (2015). How much professional development is enough? Meeting
the needs of independent music teachers learning to use a digital tool. International
Journal of Music Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761415619426
Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Väkevä, L. (2012). Philosophy of Music Education as Art of Life: A Deweyan View. In W.
Bowman & A. L. Frega (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Music
Education (pp. 1–29). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195394733.013.0005
van der Veer, R. (2012). Cultural-Historical Psychology: Contributions of Lev Vygotsky. In
J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 1–18).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0004
Vann, H. (2018a, July). Music Education in Wales at risk. ISM Journal, 3.
Vann, H. (2018b, July). Proposed cuts to East Sussex Music Service. ISM Journal, 2.
Varvarigou, M. (2014). “Play it by ear” - teachers’ responses to ear-playing tasks during
one-to-one instrumental lessons. Music Education Research, 16(4), 471–484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.878326
“VCPiano.” (2014). I am thinking about becoming a Piano Teacher. Retrieved May 16,
2016, from ABRSM Forums website:
http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=55942&page=1
Virkkula, E. (2015). Communities of practice in the conservatory: learning with a
professional musician. British Journal of Music Education, 33(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505171500011X
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Walker, R. (2001). The rise and fall of philosophies of music education: Looking
backwards in order to see ahead. Research Studies in Music Education, 17(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X010170010201
Ward, V. (2004a). Good performance, music analysis and instrumental teaching; towards
an understanding of the aims and objectives of instrumental teachers. Music
Education Research, 6(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243041000222591
Ward, V. (2004b). The performance teacher as music analyst: a case study. International
Journal of Music Education, 22(3), 248–265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761404047406
254
Welch, G., Hallam, S., Lamont, A., Swanwick, K., Green, L., Hennessy, S., … Farrell, G.
(2004). Mapping music education research in the UK. Psychology of Music, 32(3),
239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735604043257
Wenger, E. (2008). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2018). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary Theories
of Learning: Learning Theorists...In Their Own Words (pp. 219–228). Abingdon:
Routledge.
West, T., & Rostvall, A.-L. (2003). A Study of Interaction and Learning in Instrumental
Teaching. International Journal of Music Education, 40, 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/025576140304000103
Wheelahan, L. (2010). Why Knowledge Matters in Curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wilson, F. (2014). An image crisis in independent piano teaching? Retrieved May 6, 2018,
from https://crosseyedpianist.com/2014/10/06/an-image-crisis-in-independent-piano-
teaching/
Wöllner, C., & Ginsborg, J. (2011). Team teaching in the conservatoire: The views of
music performance staff and students. British Journal of Music Education, 28(03),
301–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000222
Young, M. D. F. (1998). The Curriculum of the Future: From the “new sociology of
education” to a critical theory of learning. London: Falmer Press.
Young, V., Burwell, K., & Pickup, D. (2003). Areas of Study and Teaching Strategies in
Instrumental Teaching: a case study research project. Music Education Research,
5(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800307110
Youth Music. (2006). Our Music: Musical engagement of young people aged 7-19 in the
UK. Retrieved from
https://network.youthmusic.org.uk/file/4232/download?token=4lj0GX7X
Zhukov, K. (2013). Interpersonal interactions in instrumental lessons: Teacher/student
verbal and non-verbal behaviours. Psychology of Music, 41(4), 466–483.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611430434
255
Appendix A: Example of a transcribed interview
256
Appendix B: Example of hand-coding a transcribed interview
257
Appendix C: Comparison of interview data following coding, and
the emergence of common themes
258
Appendix D: Example of hand-coding the pilot survey
259
260
Appendix E: Private Instrumental Teacher Survey
Private Instrumental Teacher Survey
My name is David Barton, and I am a doctoral student studying at the Royal College of Music,
London; I am researching autonomy and control in private instrumental teaching.
As part of that research, I am gathering data from private instrumental teachers via this survey
which explores not just aspects of autonomy and control, but also general views about the
instrumental teaching profession. The term 'instrumental' is used throughout, but this also
includes vocal teachers.
Before completing this survey, please read the following information carefully to ensure that you
are fully aware of the implications of participating:
1. The survey should take no longer than 15-25 minutes to complete;
2. Participation is voluntary: no one is obliged to take part;
3. You can withdraw and stop completing the survey at any point;
4. You have the option to omit any questions you do not wish to answer;
5. The data collected will be treated with full confidentiality, and your answers will not be
identifiable in any academic writing or publications.
If, in any of your answers, you wish to give examples from your own teaching, please do not refer
to any students by name, or give any information which might link your answers with particular
pupils.
The survey has been approved by the CUK Research Ethics Committee.
If you have any queries or concerns about participating in this research, please do not hesitate to
contact me via email at david.barton@rcm.ac.uk
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. I hope it will give us a deeper insight into
the private teaching community and its place in the wider sphere of music education.
By answering the question below, you give your informed consent for the data to be used as
outlined above.
*Required
1. Do you currently do any private instrumental (music) teaching? Private teaching may
include teaching from home, hiring studio space to teach, travelling to pupils' homes to
teach etc. *
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No Stop filling out this form.
261
Private teaching information
I’d like to begin by finding out a bit more about the private teaching you currently do.
2. How many private pupils do you currently
teach?
Please enter a number below
3. What is the age of the youngest private
pupil you currently teach?
Please enter a number below
4. What is the age of the oldest private pupil
you currently teach?
Please enter a number below
5. Do you do any other paid work alongside your private teaching?
Select as many as apply
Tick all that apply.
Peripatetic teaching in an institution (e.g. school, college etc.)
Accompanying
Composing
Performing
Other music-related work
Other non-music related work
None – private teaching is my sole source of income
262
6. If you have selected either 'Other music-related work' or 'Other non-music related work'
above, briefly describe what this is:
7. If someone asked you what being a private teacher involved, what would you say?
8. Which, if any of the following terms have you found used instead of or in addition to
‘private teacher’?
Select as many as apply
Tick all that apply.
Instrumental / vocal teacher
Independent teacher
Studio teacher
Studio-based teacher
Freelance music teacher
Self-employed music teacher
None
Other:
9. If you have any additional comments or observations to make about the questions on
this page, please add them below:
Career choice
I’d like to find out a bit more about why you chose to do some private teaching.
263
10. Briefly describe why you chose to teach privately:
11. When choosing to teach privately, how important was the ‘enjoyment factor’ in
influencing that decision? (e.g. the desire to enjoy what you are paid to do)
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
Important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Not a
consideration
12. As a private teacher, how important is it for you to feel you’re making a difference to
pupils’ lives?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
Important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Not a
consideration
13. As a teacher, how important is it that you retain the ability to choose who you teach?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
Important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
14. Do you think this has any influence on your decision to teach privately?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
15. Thinking about the private pupils you teach, how important is it that they show some
talent for music?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
Important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
264
16. If you have any additional comments or observations to make about the questions on
this page, please add them below:
Profession
I’d like to find out a bit more about your views on the wider instrumental and private teaching
profession.
17. As a private teacher, do you feel part of a wider profession?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
18. How important is it to you that you feel part of a wider profession?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
19. Do you think that private teaching is a well-respected as a profession?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
20. As a private teacher, do you interact and collaborate with other teachers?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
21. How important is it to you to have the opportunity to interact with and collaborate with
other teachers?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
22. Do you belong to a professional organisation? (e.g. ISM, EPTA, Musicians’ Union etc.)
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
265
23. If yes, which organisation(s) do you belong to?
24. How important is it to you to belong to a professional organisation?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
25. If you have any additional comments or observations to make about the questions on
this page, please add them below:
Approach
I'd like to find out a bit more about the content of and approach to the private lessons you teach.
26. As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose WHAT you teach?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
27. Why do you say this?
28. Do you involve your pupils in choosing WHAT to teach?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
266
29. If yes, briefly give some examples of how you do this:
30. As a teacher, how important is it to be able to choose HOW you teach?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very
important Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Never
considered it
31. Why do you say this?
32. Do you involve your pupils in choosing HOW you teach?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
33. If yes, briefly give some examples of how you do this:
34. How often do pupils instigate input into the lesson content (e.g. bringing things they
want to learn, asking to do a particular activity, setting their own goals etc.)?
Mark only one oval per row.
Very often Often Sometimes Rarely Never
267
35. Do you think any of your answers above are influenced by whether you're teaching
children or adults?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
36. If yes, how do you think that influences you?
37. Is there a limit to the amount of input a pupil can have in terms of the lesson content?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
38. Why do you say that?
39. As a private teacher, have you taught both at home and in pupils’ homes?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No After the last question in this section, skip to question 44.
40. If yes, do you think that influences your approach to any of the above?
268
41. Thinking about everything on this page, do you think these factors have an influence
over your decision to teach privately?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
42. Why do you say that?
43. If you have any additional comments or observations to make about the questions on
this page, please add them below:
Final Questions
Some final questions about private teaching.
44. If you have been engaged to teach peripatetically in an institution (e.g. school, college
etc.) in addition to private teaching, do you have a preference for one or the other?
Please select one option
Tick all that apply.
Prefer private teaching
Prefer peripatetic teaching
No preference
45. Why do you say this?
269
46. What is your ultimate aim for the pupils you teach?
47. Thinking back to when you started teaching, what were the key influences over what
and how you taught?
48. Thinking about your teaching now, do you think you still teach in the same way as
when you started?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
49. If yes, has this affirmed and strengthened the impact of the key influences you
indicated above?
50. If no, what do you think has changed in your teaching, and what were the key
influences over those changes?
51. In 10 years' time, do you think your teaching will have changed?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
270
52. Why do you say this?
53. If you have any additional comments or observations to make about the questions on
this page, please add them below:
General information
Finally, some general questions about you
54. Gender
Mark only one oval.
Male
Female
55. Age
Mark only one oval.
Under 18 years old
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75-84 years old
85 years and older
56. In which country is your teaching primarily
based
Please type the name of the country below
271
272
Appendix F: Examples of coding responses in NVivo within
emerging themes
273
