A Response to Krista Riggs, "Foundations for Flow: A Philosophical Model for Studio Instruction"
- Response to Krista Riggs, “Foundations for Flow: A Philosophical Model For Studio Instruction”
Krista Riggs has written a provocative paper examining the relationship between psychology and pedagogy within the applied music studio. The sources Riggs employs as the basis for her arguments reflect some of the most enduring voices in educational psychology and philosophy (including music), and performance practice/preparation in music. Riggs draws important connections between these occasionally disparate fields. I appreciate this opportunity to add to the discussion.
As the foundation of this model, Riggs employs the study of optimal experience, known as 'flow theory,' as researched by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi1 over the past three decades. The flow experience is only possible when an individual's personal capacities are congruent with the opportunities and goals afforded by the environment.2 When coupled with the necessary congruency between challenges and skills inherent in the flow model, Riggs' analysis raises questions concerning the definition of success within applied studio instruction, the position of studio instruction within the totality of a student's experience, and the ways in which teachers and students negotiate learning within applied music instruction.
Three Questions
Is the definition of success different for students than it is for teachers?
At first blush, this paper concerns the "how" of music education—how we teach and how we encourage student motivation. Oftentimes, "how" we teach is dependent upon "why" we teach and "what" we teach. This becomes clear in the paper's introduction when success is defined as an outcome of education. Is the purpose of music education to build toward success using a very narrow, career-specific definition or is the purpose of music education to build toward broader success in many facets of musical knowledge and skill?
Of course, this paper is contextualized to teaching within the applied studio and it may be that success in studio teaching is somewhat narrowly defined. But, at core is a potential conflict in the definition of success as defined by the teacher and the definition of success as appropriate for the student. In the model presented here, the definition of success is clearly student-centered and the success of the instructor is measured by the degree to which the student is supported on that pathway toward success. This is not to say that the instructional content of [End Page 225] the studio experience becomes less rigorous in any way, but rather that the instruction itself is modified to better ensure the success of students in learning and applying that content. Riggs implies, and Csikszentmihalyi would agree, that teachers cannot create flow experiences in students, but can create the conditions within which flow experiences can occur. The question is: What are those conditions and are they in conflict with the definition of success used by many studio teachers?
The conditions necessary for flow experience have been identified through research and are embedded throughout Riggs' paper. The conditions are stated here in a purely student-centered manner. But, there are two players in this scene and it is the relationship between the student and teacher that most determines the experience of each. I am an unabashed proponent of attempts to optimize the quality of experience for students. However, the needs of the instructor seem to be missing from this discussion. It might be argued that this model is purely about studio instruction itself and an exploration of the instructor's needs is better suited for a different paper. Even so, the instructor's experiences, both in the past and in the present, do have bearing upon the student experience of the present. For example, it is probably a fair assumption that each instructor has, at some point, been a student in a studio. Might there be substantial value in a process of reflective analysis of that experience? Riggs does invoke the roles of reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action from the student viewpoint, but it might be illuminating to discern the instructor's reflections as well—and for these to be selectively shared with the student. In this way, studio teachers would be closer to fulfilling another necessary exemplar role: that of "master" teacher (or "mentor" teacher). If...
