Misleading Comparison

I really appreciate Shamoon and Burns discussing alternative means of tutoring. I am actually working on a project that explores what composition pedagogy can learn from musical voice pedagogy. Still, I feel like the comparisons that they are making are not quite sound. They do a good job of describing the music/art studio and of explaining how learning happens through imitation there (231-2). They also do a good job of discussing how they have learned well through directive "tutoring" from faculty on their own writings (228-30). Finally, I appreciate their discussion of Harris' work with "Mike" that follows a different pattern than traditional tutoring (235). I don't think that these are three like examples, though. I can see the similarities between the two. The "student" has produced something that the "teacher" goes in a creates a stronger version of. The "student" ultimately takes on some of those suggestions and leaves with a stronger piece of writing/music/art etc as well as a stronger understanding of his/her medium. With Harris' example, though, the student is learning a way of approaching a writing situation. I think that is the difference that Shamoon and Burns are failing to see. Learning an approach is from imitation or emulation is very different than having a work strongly critiqued. Beginning writers may very well need that emulation, but it is of a different sort than that seen in the studio model they support. I feel like they make an interesting argument on comparisons that are not quite sound.