Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times: A Music Education Perspective (Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education, 4) 3031376188, 9783031376184

Citation preview

Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4

Jennifer M. Mellizo

Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times A Music Education Perspective

Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education Volume 4

Series Editors Brett Elizabeth Blake, St. John’s University, Queens, NY, USA Rob Linné, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, USA Editorial Board Members Silvia Benard, Ph.D., Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico Robert W. Blake, Ph.D., Towson University, Towson, MD, USA Julie H. Carter Ph.D., D’Youville College, Buffalo, NY, USA Ineke Edes, Professor, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht,  The Netherlands Aitor Gomez Gonzalez, Ph.D., University Rovirai Virgili (Tarragona), Catalunya, Spain Awad Ibrahim, Ph.D., University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Em Maslak, Ph.D., St. John’s University, Queens, NY, USA Shirley Steinberg, Ph.D., University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Stephanie Troutman, Ph.D., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Mark Vicars, Ph.D., Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

This series explores the shifting landscape of the adolescent experience in schools from a global perspective, and illuminates promising contemporary models of adolescence education around the world. As well as broadening the global perspective, the series addresses issues of adolescence and schooling from outside the typical scope of studies that focus mainly on the biological, neurological, and/or psychological aspects of youth development. The series includes both theoretical and pedagogical works that spotlight a broad range of geographical areas, and examines critical pedagogies, inclusive educational practices, and shifting youth demographics. It emphasizes the socio-cultural, historic, and political nature of adolescence in relation to education and education practices in the 21st century. Author voices include non-western views, perspectives, and practices, as well as out-of-school experiences such as that of the Muslim youth encamped  - and receiving “education”- across the European Union. This series: • provides valuable insights to all professionals united by a commitment to a new vision for the education of adolescents • fills a crucial need for published research outside the more essentialist aspects of adolescence • appeals to a broad audience of scholars, educators, teacher educators, as well as students and youth educators in sport and health education

Jennifer M. Mellizo

Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times A Music Education Perspective

Jennifer M. Mellizo University of Wyoming Laboratory School Laramie, WY, USA

ISSN 2522-8269     ISSN 2522-8277 (electronic) Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education ISBN 978-3-031-37618-4    ISBN 978-3-031-37619-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Part I Theoretical Foundations 1

 Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music? ��������������������������    3 1.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 1.2 Understanding the Global Education Movement������������������������������    4 1.2.1 Domain 1: Knowledge����������������������������������������������������������    5 1.2.2 Domain 2: Skills ������������������������������������������������������������������    6 1.2.3 “Knowledge” and “Skills” in Music Education: The Educational Standards Movement ��������������������������������    7 1.2.4 Domain 3: Disposition����������������������������������������������������������    9 1.3 Global Citizenship Education ����������������������������������������������������������   10 1.3.1 Levels of Citizenship������������������������������������������������������������   11 1.3.2 Developing Global Identity��������������������������������������������������   11 1.4 Why Music Education as Global Education? ����������������������������������   13 1.4.1 Music Is a Global Phenomenon��������������������������������������������   14 1.4.2 Music Is a Human Phenomenon ������������������������������������������   14 1.4.3 Music Is a Social Phenomenon ��������������������������������������������   15 1.4.4 Music Is a Transformative Phenomenon������������������������������   16 1.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17

2

 Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.1 What Is Intercultural Sensitivity? ����������������������������������������������������   22 2.2 The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)������   22 2.2.1 Ethnocentrism ����������������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.2.2 Ethnorelativism ��������������������������������������������������������������������   24 2.3 Assessing Intercultural Sensitivity����������������������������������������������������   25 2.4 Limitations of the DMIS and Related Assessment Tools ����������������   27 2.5 Using the DMIS to Cultivate Global Disposition ����������������������������   28

v

vi

Contents

2.6 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity in K-12 Settings: A Review of the Research��������������������������������������������������������������   28 2.6.1 Identity Formation��������������������������������������������������������������   33 2.7 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   34 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 3

 Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education ������������   37 3.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   37 3.2 The DMIS and Music Education “Systems”����������������������������������   38 3.3 Systemic Tendency #1: Homogeneous Musical Content����������������   39 3.4 Systemic Tendency #2: Program Structure ������������������������������������   41 3.5 Systemic Tendency #3: Pedagogy��������������������������������������������������   43 3.6 Systemic Tendency #4: Assessment������������������������������������������������   44 3.7 Systemic Denial in Music Education����������������������������������������������   47 3.8 Systemic Defense in Music Education ������������������������������������������   47 3.9 Systemic Minimization in Music Education����������������������������������   48 3.10 Too Much, Too Soon? ��������������������������������������������������������������������   50 3.11 Conclusion: Initiating a “Developmental” Approach to Systemic Change������������������������������������������������������������������������   52 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53

Part II Practical Applications 4

Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach��������������������������������������������������������������������   59 4.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   59 4.1.1 How Do We Move Forward?����������������������������������������������   60 4.2 Overcoming Systemic Denial in Music Education ������������������������   61 4.2.1 Tradition as a Barrier to Progress ��������������������������������������   61 4.2.2 Acknowledging Diversity ��������������������������������������������������   61 4.3 Overcoming Systemic Defense in Music Education����������������������   64 4.3.1 “West is Best” as a Barrier to Progress������������������������������   64 4.3.2 Stressing Commonalities����������������������������������������������������   65 4.4 Overcoming Systemic Minimization in Music Education��������������   71 4.4.1 “Music is the Universal Language” as a Barrier to Progress��������������������������������������������������������������������������   71 4.4.2 Debunking “Music is the Universal Language” ����������������   71 4.5 Beyond Minimization: Achieving Ethnorelativism in Music Education����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   77 4.6 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   78 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   80

Contents

vii

5

 Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education����������   83 5.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83 5.1.1 Music Educators and Cultural Bias������������������������������������   84 5.2 Music Educator Denial: “It’s Just the Way Things Are …”������������   84 5.3 Beyond Denial: Becoming “Wide-Awake”������������������������������������   85 5.4 Music Educator Defense: “It’s the Way Things Should Be”����������   87 5.4.1 Aesthetic Philosophy����������������������������������������������������������   88 5.4.2 Methodolatry����������������������������������������������������������������������   88 5.4.3 Autocracy����������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 5.5 Beyond Defense: Starting Small����������������������������������������������������   90 5.6 Music Educator Minimization: Performing Tolerance ������������������   92 5.7 Beyond Minimization: Developing Cultural Self-Awareness��������   93 5.7.1 Is Critical Self Reflection Effective?����������������������������������   94 5.8 Music Educator Acceptance: Difference “Is” ��������������������������������   95 5.9 Beyond Acceptance: Taking Risks��������������������������������������������������   96 5.9.1 Culturally Responsive Teaching ����������������������������������������   97 5.9.2 World Music Pedagogy������������������������������������������������������   98 5.9.3 Value Relativity������������������������������������������������������������������   98 5.10 Music Educator Adaptation: Developing New Knowledge and Skills����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 5.11 Music Educator Integration: Does it Exist?������������������������������������  100 5.12 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  101 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  102

6

 Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education��������  105 6.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  105 6.2 Denial in the Music Classroom������������������������������������������������������  106 6.2.1 Diversifying Content and Pedagogy ����������������������������������  106 6.3 Defense in the Music Classroom����������������������������������������������������  107 6.3.1 Highlighting Human Commonalities����������������������������������  109 6.3.2 Starting “Closer to Home”��������������������������������������������������  109 6.3.3 Contextualizing������������������������������������������������������������������  110 6.4 Minimization in the Music Classroom��������������������������������������������  111 6.4.1 Discerning Differences ������������������������������������������������������  112 6.4.2 Developing Familiarity ������������������������������������������������������  113 6.5 Acceptance in the Music Classroom����������������������������������������������  114 6.5.1 Music-Making��������������������������������������������������������������������  114 6.5.2 Re-framing “Good” Music and Music Education��������������  115 6.6 Adaptation/Integration in the Music Classroom ����������������������������  116 6.6.1 Practice, Practice, Practice��������������������������������������������������  117 6.6.2 Modeling Global Disposition���������������������������������������������  118 6.7 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121

viii

7

Contents

 Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 7.1.1 Synthesizing through Story��������������������������������������������������  124 7.1.2 About Autoethnography��������������������������������������������������������  125 7.2 Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 7.3 Closing Thoughts������������������������������������������������������������������������������  144 7.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  146 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  147

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151

Part I

Theoretical Foundations

Chapter 1

Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

Abstract  Through this introductory chapter, I explore the unique potential of music education to cultivate the type of positive global dispositions today’s young people (tomorrow’s citizens) will need to “build bridges among themselves” (Greene M. Educ Res 22(1):17, 1993), and solve difficult problems that cut across traditional geographic borders. Many recent global education initiatives have focused on the knowledge and skills students will need to be successful in an interconnected and ever-changing world. Far less attention has been paid to the type of disposition required to work collaboratively and effectively with people from many different cultural backgrounds in many different geographic locations. This chapter closes with a discussion of several distinct reasons why educational scholars and practitioners should seriously consider music education as a powerful vehicle through which the goals of global education can be realized. These rationales lay the groundwork for the chapters that follow. Keywords  Music · Education · Global education · Global mindset · Citizenship · Curriculum

1.1 Introduction Over the past half century, our world has experienced unprecedented changes. People are moving within and between nations at higher rates than ever before (Banks, 2015), a phenomenon that has led to many social, cultural, and demographic shifts. Societies that were once mostly monocultural are now multicultural (Campbell, 2013). This trend is reflected in classroom demographics around the world, which are now more diverse than ever (Bruen & Kelly, 2016). In addition to demographic changes, “the media has catapulted to its current high-powered This chapter includes several short excerpts from “Music Education as Global Education: A Developmental Approach,” by J.  M. Mellizo, 2019, a journal article originally published in TOPICS for Music Education Praxis. The author retains copyright for the original article. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_1

3

4

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

position of influence” (Campbell, 2013, p. 23) and “technology has given rise to various modes of high-speed communication”, which has in turn completely revolutionized the ways in which humans from every corner of the world can access information and interact with one another. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the interconnectedness of our world through technology became even more apparent. Virtual education environments became the “norm” and teachers learned to design learning experiences that crossed borders of space and time (Nesthinghe et al., 2023). As these examples clearly indicate, “the world is changing right before our very eyes” (Campbell, 2013, p.  23)–and educational systems respond accordingly. To function (and hopefully thrive) in a globalized world, today’s students (tomorrow’s citizens) will need to possess new kinds of knowledge, different types of skills, and perhaps most importantly, “the attitudinal and ethical dispositions that make it possible to interact peacefully, respectfully and productively with fellow human beings from diverse geographies” (Reimers, 2009, p. 184). Helping students develop these types of competencies within education systems is an issue that transcends traditional subject area boundaries. Promoting a “global dimension in the curriculum” (Hicks, 2003, p.  270) should be a priority for all teachers, in all subject areas, everywhere.

1.2 Understanding the Global Education Movement In a 2012 report written for the College Board, Balistreri et al. summarized the primary rationale for the global education movement: There is an ever-increasing awareness among educators, students, parents, policymakers, and the general population that education needs to respond to the constantly evolving global paradigm. In particular, students must learn in ways that prepare them to engage effectively in a world increasingly defined by global interconnectedness and global issues (p. 4).

In recent literature, the term global education has been used to describe an educational approach that responds to this heightened awareness of the need for curricular change by “simultaneously addressing issues brought about by globalization to date, while preparing students to be the inventors of an unknown future that continues to be shaped by global forces” (Balistreri et al., 2012, p. 10). Global competency, which is often discussed as a (or the) primary goal of global education initiatives, is an all-encompassing term that describes the combination of knowledge, skills, and disposition today’s educators and education scholars believe future citizens will need to successfully navigate the complexities of a quickly changing world that is not predominately defined by national borders (Hicks, 2003; Reimers, 2009; Balistreri et al., 2012). To fully understand the role of music education within the context of this conversation, it is necessary to give deeper consideration to the three distinct domains that

1.2  Understanding the Global Education Movement

5

most modern global education frameworks have in common: knowledge, skills, and disposition.

1.2.1 Domain 1: Knowledge The first global education domain, knowledge, encompasses the information educators, educational scholars, policymakers, and other stakeholders believe today’s students (tomorrow’s citizens) will need to know to be successful in an interconnected, increasingly non-national, and ever-changing world. Balistreri et  al. (2012) explained, “In the era of globalization, knowledge–rather than capital or physical labor–is increasingly at the center of economic production” (p. 14). The knowledge domain is often interpreted as mastery of key concepts in certain subject areas, such as language arts, math, history, and science (sometimes second-­ language acquisition and digital literacy are also considered key components of the knowledge domain). Global education scholars have argued “core” knowledge in these subject areas is “foundational to other types of knowledge,” serves “as an entryway to the later acquisition of higher-order cognition” (Balistreri et al., p. 12), and ultimately, opens the door to more in-depth and nuanced conversations about complicated global issues (e.g., issues related to health, the economy, and the environment). The age-old problem with the knowledge domain is the inherently political and subjective process of determining which knowledge is most important and useful for students to learn within formal education settings (Gal, 2005). In the United States (which I will use as my frame of reference throughout this section, since it is the system with which I am most familiar), mastery of knowledge in several academic areas (language arts/reading, math, and sometimes  science) has become a primary objective (if not the primary objective) of the educational system from a national perspective. Over the past several decades, an enormous amount of time, energy, and money has been spent trying to maximize and assess/document student gains in these areas. Consequently, “non-core” subjects (like music) have been pushed to the curricular “back-burner”, both in terms of time devoted to study and funding. In 2007, music education scholar Patrick Jones elaborated on problems related to this systemic tendency, arguing the “education ‘establishment’” does not always respond “comprehensively to the needs of a creative economy” (p. 12). He continued, “An emphasis on high-stakes testing in a few subject areas has caused a narrowing of the curriculum to the point that courses in the liberal arts and the creative and performing arts are becoming marginalized and eliminated in many schools” (p. 12). Kertz-Welzel (2018) expressed similar sentiments, stating, “When the market forces prescribe what well-educated and skilled citizens should know and be able to do, there is not much room for an education that is not immediately useful, such as in the arts or in critical thinking” (p. 18).

6

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

1.2.2 Domain 2: Skills The second domain of global education encompasses the skills needed to “access, interpret, manage, and apply knowledge” (Balistreri et al., 2012, p. 13). These skills (often referred to as “twenty-first-century skills”) include critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, innovation, and communication—the types of skills educators, education scholars, policymakers, and other stakeholders believe will help today’s students become “effective and competitive in the current and in the future global interconnected and interdependent world system” (p. 4). In particular, “critical thinking” and “problem solving” are two skills that have received substantial attention in almost all contemporary global education frameworks (Balistreri et al., 2012). Again, from a United States music education perspective, these two skills are highlighted prominently in the 2014 National Core Arts Standards conceptual framework document (NCCAS, 2014). The authors who prepared this framework asserted: Precisely because of the emotional connections that students make to and through works of art, the application of critical thinking to understanding and evaluating those works leads to the development of those structures or elements of though implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference (p. 21).

These authors continued, “Students who actively study the arts necessarily engage in and develop a disciplined, step-by-step approach to problems in creating, realizing, or understanding art” (p. 21). One major problem stemming from the skills domain is the tendency to over-­ emphasize “education’s role in meeting economic, human capital needs over other social needs” (Gal, 2005, p. 280). By focusing too much on equipping students with “skills for success” in an economic global paradigm, educators risk neglecting some of the more humanistic realities of globalization (and purposes of education). Several educational scholars have stressed the need for school learning experiences to prepare students to respond to current and future social needs in addition to economic needs. For example, Gal (2005) asserted, “Decisions about education policy and practice are optimally made by considering not only the economic environment, but the social, cultural, and religious environment unique to a particular context, and how all of these are responding to the process of globalization” (p. 280). In a similar way, Freire (1970/1996) argued school learning experiences should be informed by the life experiences, values, aspirations, and challenges of people within the communities being served.

1.2  Understanding the Global Education Movement

7

1.2.3 “Knowledge” and “Skills” in Music Education: The Educational Standards Movement In the United States, the marginalization of music as a subject in the school curriculum became even more evident in 1994, when music was not listed as a “basic” discipline within the original proposal for the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994 (Benedict, 2006). Attempting to gain more legitimacy as an academic subject, the National Association for Music Education/NAfME (at the time called Music Educators National Conference/MENC) adopted “national standards” that were similar in structure to other “basic” disciplines (e.g., math, language arts, science, history). The nine original content standards, written in the form of concrete behavioral objectives, were intended “to provide precise steps, teacher accountability, and evidence to the fact that music is measurable, and as a result, a necessary ‘basic’ discipline” (Benedict, 2006, p. 5). At the time, proponents argued the adoption of national music standards addressed “two fundamental issues that pervade all of education–quality and accountability”—helping to “ensure that the study of the art is disciplined and well-focused, and that arts instruction has a point of reference for assessing its results” (Mahlmann, 1994, pp. 15–16). However, as Benedict (2006) and others have since pointed out, these behavioral objectives were shaped by “larger forces and powerful assumptions” (p. 3) about “what and whose knowledge” (p. 6) was most worthy of study in school music classrooms (Western Art Music and related concepts/skills). In 2014, the U.S. national music standards were revised and rebranded the National Core Music Standards–a reference to the belief that music should be considered a “core” academic subject in the school curriculum. These re-imagined standards were intended to be less product/behavioral and more process oriented. Rather than highlighting specific behavioral objectives, the 2014 standards focused more broadly on “the knowledge and understanding required to participate authentically in the arts” (NCCAS, 2014, p. 17). The authors who wrote the conceptual framework that grounds these standards stated, “no longer will we talk about standards as lists of what students should know and be able to do. Rather, we will talk about standards as measurable and attainable learning events based on artistic goals” (p. 7). The 2014 national standards document was built upon the premise that all students within a given educational system should have opportunities to develop artistic “literacy” (p. 17) by engaging “in artistic processes directly” (p. 17), becoming familiar with “appropriate materials” (e.g., instruments, musical scores, the human body) (p. 17), and learning to interpret the “sign and symbol systems used to make and express meaning” in different arts domains (p. 18). These authors stated, “Arts literacy therefore requires an acknowledgement that each arts discipline (e.g., music) has its own language, which is informed by its history and common practices, and that learning these languages requires in-depth immersion and training” (p.  18). This statement reveals a key assumption that I will circle back to and

8

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

question throughout the course of this book: “Music” is a universally understood concept that has one common language. At the most basic level, the 2014 National Core Arts Standards are comprised of four broad artistic processes that attempt to “define and organize the link between the art and the learner” (NCCAS, 2014, p. 11): Creating, Performing, Responding, and Connecting. These processes are not music specific. Rather, they are applicable across several artistic domains (e.g., music, visual art, dance, etc.). Each overarching artistic process is further broken down into several smaller anchor standards– which “describe the general knowledge and skills that teachers expect students to demonstrate throughout their education in the arts” (p. 12). Ultimately, the anchor standards are also broken down even further into performance standards for each individual artistic domain, which describe in more specific terms what student learning/achievement/proficiency should like at different grade levels in these subjects. These performance standards are accompanied by model cornerstone assessments, which are intended to “engage students in applying knowledge and skills in authentic and relevant contexts” (p. 15) and provide the basis for evaluation. In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. This law replaced the term “core academic subjects” with the concept of a “well-rounded education” (NAfME, 2015), requiring schools across the United States to clearly document the ways in which they provide all students with access to knowledge and skill development in a broad range of curricular subject areas. This new educational law listed often-marginalized subjects like music and visual arts alongside subjects such as language arts and math within its definition of a “well-rounded education” (Darrow, 2016). The passage of this law was widely viewed as an important victory for music education advocates in the United States, who had spent a great deal of time and energy championing the various benefits of music education with members of Congress and other stakeholders in the national education system (NAfME, 2015). However, some scholars argue the practical benefits of the law for music education programs have been minimal, at best (Koz Jr., 2018). Although musical knowledge and skills are valued in a theoretical way, the law does not require states and individual school districts to offer music classes. Although the previous examples are drawn from the American music education context, many other music education systems around the world have also been deeply influenced by the educational standards movement and have articulated some form of music content standards (musical knowledge all students should know and musical skills all students should be able to demonstrate) (Kertz-Welzel, 2018). Although some progress towards more diversity, inclusivity, and flexibility has been made (e.g., the 2014 U.S. national standards revisions), I argue the “standards-­ based” paradigm in music education is problematic for several reasons. This topic will be given more attention in Chaps. 3 and 4.

1.2  Understanding the Global Education Movement

9

1.2.4 Domain 3: Disposition The third domain of global education, disposition (sometimes referred to as global mindset), can be understood as the attitude/mindset, values, and sensibilities that support “a mindful way of being in the world today” (Gardner, as cited in Balistreri et al., 2012, p. 16). People who possess a global disposition acknowledge and accept that people in all countries share a common thread of humanity, such as the need for love, water, shelter, and community (www.globalsolutions.org), and can engage in perspective-taking on a global scale (being able to see life from someone else’s point of view). People who possess a global disposition have come to understand “that many millions of people, of varying creeds and colors, are all on his or her team” (Coon, 2000, p. 86). Additional attributes commonly linked to global disposition in past research literature include (from Balistreri et al., 2012; Gal, 2005; Tye & Tye, 1992): • Curiosity about the world and its people • Tolerance and understanding across racial, linguistic, national, and cultural boundaries • Awareness and acceptance of one’s own and others’ perspectives, assumptions, and traditions • Appreciation of nuances and complexities that exist in the world • Willingness to act in ways that acknowledge global interconnectedness • Belief in one’s own capacity to make positive contributions in the world • Desire to make positive contributions in the world • A sense of responsibility to others (even distant “others”) • Concern for fairness, justice, and progress on a global scale Gal (2005) asserted, “A major thrust of schooling must be to foster respect and tolerance of other cultures, races, ethnicities, and to live together peacefully by finding common ground within differences” (p.  264). As it stands, however, educational initiatives designed to promote global disposition are not nearly as common as those designed to promote global knowledge and/or skills. Although there are a variety of potential reasons for this discrepancy, I will elaborate on the two I believe are most likely here. First, learning outcomes related to the “knowledge” and “skills” domains are relatively easy to measure. Relating this idea to music education specifically, measuring student proficiency related to rhythmic recognition or vocal pitch matching is a straightforward process. In contrast, educational outcomes related to disposition/attitude are much more difficult to measure. For example, how does one measure the extent to which students develop higher levels of empathy for people in different geographic locations by engaging with culturally unfamiliar music? Because current systems of education prioritize learning outcomes that are specific and measurable, it is easy to relegate learning outcomes that are more subjective and difficult to measure to the margins of the curriculum. Another plausible reason for the lack of attention given to the third domain of global education (disposition) is the common misconception that a student’s

10

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

identification as a “global citizen” will somehow supersede or override their identification as a national citizen. The idea that global citizenship is somehow a “threat” to national citizenship seems to be more common  in powerful nations (e.g., Germany, Russia, the United States, China), where “there is more of a widespread tendency to assume that international cooperation is unnecessary” (Hebert & KertzWelzel, 2016, p. 176). Within countries such as these, “an internationalist attitude tends more often to be viewed with suspicion relative to smaller nations for which its necessity is undeniable” (p. 176). A relevant example of this phenomenon is the widespread acceptance (in the United States) of former president Donald Trump’s “America First” slogan. This slogan prioritizes national citizenship and implies global citizenship is unnecessary or possibly even undesirable. Because the term global citizenship is viewed as politically charged, some administrators, policy makers, and teachers in powerful countries make conscious decisions to adopt more “mainstream” (nationalistic) approaches to citizenship education, instead of choosing a more global approach.

1.3 Global Citizenship Education In 2015, multicultural education scholar James Banks noted key differences between what he called mainstream and transformative approaches to citizenship education. The main distinguishing factors between these approaches are highlighted in Table  1.1. Within the mainstream approach to citizenship education, students assume a predominantly passive role in the classroom. Banks stated, “The emphasis is on memorizing facts about constitutions and other legal documents, learning about various branches of government, and developing patriotism to the nation-­ state” (p. 37). Educational scholar Paulo Freire (1970/1996), referred to this type of approach as the “banking model” of education. He argued, “The scope of action allowed to the students (within this type of educational approach) extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits” (p. 53). According to Banks, the mainstream approach to citizenship education is inadequate because “it reinforces Table 1.1  Mainstream citizenship education vs. Transformative citizenship education Mainstream citizenship education Stresses national citizenship identification and loyalty to the nation-state Focuses on memorization of facts about history, government, and documents Reinforces the “status quo” and dominant power relations in society Student is a passive consumer of information during the learning process

Transformative citizenship education Stresses positive and reflective citizenship identifications at multiple levels (e.g., cultural, local, national, global) Focuses on real-life problems and applications in society Challenges epistemological assumptions of mainstream knowledge Student assumes an active role in the learning process

1.3  Global Citizenship Education

11

the status quo and the dominant power relationships in society” and “does not help students to understand their multiple and complex identities nor the ways in which their lives are influenced by globalization, or what their role should be in a global world” (2013, p. 112). In contrast, one of the main purposes of a transformative approach to citizenship education is to “improve the human condition” by introducing students to “paradigms that challenge some of the key epistemological assumptions of mainstream knowledge” (Banks, 2013, p. 112). This approach requires the students’ active participation in the learning process and encourages them “to acquire the information, skills, and values needed to challenge inequality within their communities, their nations, and the world” (Banks, 2015, p. 37). Freire (1970/1996) argued, “the students–no longer docile listeners–are now critical co-investigators with the teacher” (p. 62). He continued, “students, as they are increasingly posed with problems relating to themselves in the world and with the world, will feel increasingly challenged and obligated to respond to that challenge.”

1.3.1 Levels of Citizenship In addition to his reflections about approaches to teaching citizenship in classrooms (mainstream vs. transformative), Banks (2015) hypothesized there are different levels of citizenship that exist within any society, ranging from a legal citizen to a transformative citizen. He encouraged educators to “recognize and respect students at all levels of citizenship”, but also urged them to “help students increase their level of citizenship and become transformative and deep citizens” of their local communities, nations, and the world (p. 36). Banks provided a diagram that illustrates this idea (shown in Fig. 1.1).

1.3.2 Developing Global Identity Banks (2015)stressed global identity as one important outcome of transformative citizenship education in formal learning environments, regardless of geographic location. He rejected the notion that attaining a global identity somehow threatened other levels of citizenship identifications (such as cultural and national). Additionally, he advocated for cultivating citizenship identifications from a developmental perspective. He elaborated: An individual can attain a healthy and reflective national identification only when he or she has acquired a healthy and reflective cultural identification; and individuals can develop a reflective and positive global identification only after they have a realistic, reflective, and positive national identification (p. 37).

12

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

Fig. 1.1  Types of citizens, defined by four levels of participation. (Originally published in “Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age,” by James A. Banks. Educational Researcher 37 (3), p. 137. Re-printed by Permission of SAGE Publications)

Figure 1.2 is a visual depiction of this developmental idea. According to Banks’ theory, the process of becoming a global citizen must begin at the center of the diagram (the local level), and gradually expands outward over time, eventually reaching the “global” level. Banks hypothesized that as individuals began to feel a stronger sense of clarified, reflective, and positive global identity, they would not discard in-group identifications at other levels. Instead, he suggested these layers of identity would provide additional confidence and understanding in the move to wider conceptualizations of “community.” Banks hoped educators would use this developmental idea to conceptualize the ways in which they could help their students develop clarified, reflective, and positive in-group identifications as “members” of local, cultural, national, and ultimately global communities. According to Banks’ theory, only a person who reaches the outermost layer of the concentric circles shown in Fig.  1.2 and the transformative level shown in Fig. 1.1 and can become a transformative global citizen: A person who has acquired “the knowledge, values, and commitment to take action to make their local communities, the nation, and the world more just and caring places in which to live and work” (p.  33). Banks hypothesized that students who develop strong in-group

1.4  Why Music Education as Global Education?

13

Global Identification National Identification Cultural Identification

American

Language

Chinese

Religion

French

Sexual Orientation

Local Community

Mexican

Close Friends

The Individual

Race

Everywhere

Tribal Identification

Ethnicity

All Humans

Family

Gender

SES

Beninese

Everywhere

Fig. 1.2  A developmental theory of citizenship identification (based on ideas from Banks (2015). This diagram originally appeared in J.  M. Mellizo (2018). The author retains copyright for the article)

affiliations at every level of community they will need to navigate in the future, can become the types of future citizens who will work together to solve problems that extend beyond geographic borders, and collectively transform our world into a more just and humane place.

1.4 Why Music Education as Global Education? Music educators have the potential to educate student musicians to be ethically involved citizens of the world. Educators can promote worldwide understanding by nurturing sensitivity and fostering sympathy within and between human beings and thus help students become agents in the creation of alternative globalizations (Heinomen, 2012, p. 62).

Although Banks’ ideas regarding global citizenship education are directly applicable in a wide variety of subject area settings, it is important to identify places in the curriculum within which these types of learning experiences can be embedded most naturally (Mellizo, 2017). Several authors have already alluded to the unique

14

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

potential of arts education to function as a powerful form of global education. Influential education scholar Maxine Greene (1993, 1995), who was a vocal and persistent advocate for the inclusion of the arts in the school curriculum, often discussed the unique opportunities arts educators had to help students release their imaginations in order “to cross the empty spaces between [them]selves and those [they] have called the other” (1995, p. 3). Greene argued arts education could help young people develop the capacity to see through others’ eyes (empathy) and empower them “not simply to make a living … but to live and along with others, remake their own worlds” (p. 170). Within the field of music education specifically, there have been isolated pockets of discussion regarding the ways in which music participation can foster global dispositions and citizenship identifications, although this idea is not universally accepted (Jorgensen, 2003; Heinomen, 2012; Regelski, 2016; Silverman & Elliott, 2017). Most often, sociocultural outcomes (e.g., tolerance, cultural understanding, prejudice reduction, global awareness) have been discussed as positive byproducts of music education, but not usually as explicit goals (Kertz-Welzel, 2018). Yet, there are compelling reasons why field of music education is uniquely positioned to lead educational initiatives designed to help adolescent students develop global competencies–in particular, those designed to cultivate positive global dispositions.

1.4.1 Music Is a Global Phenomenon The presence of music as an important part of the human world is something every culture in the world has in common. This notion has been widely discussed, especially by ethnomusicologists and scholars in the area of world music education (Nettl, 1992; Campbell, 2018). Nettl (1992) stated, “Music can be best understood as an aspect of the culture of which it is a part, and understanding can in turn help us to understand the world’s cultures and their diversity” (p. 4). No, music is not a “universal language”, through which all people can immediately understand and appreciate one another, but it does provide important common ground that can serve as a natural starting point for global learning experiences.

1.4.2 Music Is a Human Phenomenon The notion of music as a human phenomenon is grounded by a praxial philosophy of music education, which stresses the ways in which “people are at the core of all musical transactions” (Elliott & Silverman, 2015, p.  1). As Elliott & Silverman stated, “For music to exist, people must first enact music. No persons, no music” (p. 86). For this reason, proponents of a praxial philosophy of music education recommend active, participatory musical learning experiences as a key to musical, and therefore, human understanding.

1.4  Why Music Education as Global Education?

15

Several authors have drawn parallels between music participation and the development of empathy. Greene (1995) described empathy as using “our imaginations to enter (another person’s) world and to discover how it looks and feels from the vantage point of the person whose world it is” (p. 4). She elaborated, “That does not mean we approve it or even necessarily appreciate it. It does mean that we extend our experience sufficiently to grasp it as a human possibility” (p. 4). Greene argued participatory experiences in the arts required people to release their imagination, and boldly asserted, “Imagination is what, above all, makes empathy possible” (p. 3). Jorgensen (2003) illustrated this point from a musician’s perspective, reflecting, “I learn to look at another’s music empathetically, putting myself, as it were, in the other’s place, trying imaginatively to grasp how it might feel to be the other in his or her musical tradition” (p. 122). In a similar way, Heinomen (2012) asserted music participation could help individuals “understand the feelings and needs of other people in the world” (p.  64). Although music education scholar David J.  Elliott (1990) pointed out examples of the ways in which we (humans) have a “tendency to use music as a means of separating ourselves from one another” (p. 148), he argued active, participatory music-making experiences could open the door to empathy by providing valuable insights about what music means to and how music is used by another person (or people within a given cultural group).

1.4.3 Music Is a Social Phenomenon Building upon the idea of music as a human phenomenon, proponents of a praxial philosophy of music education further contend music is a social phenomenon, because it is something humans make and do for and with others (Elliott & Silverman, 2015). From this perspective, music participation functions as a unique form of collective identity building. Regelski (2016) argued, “Music serves as a foundation for group belonging” (p. 18), while Gates (1999) asserted, “Music study can uniquely give reinforcement to the many person-group relationships that the school is designed to build … and this certainly increases their tolerance for diversity” (p. 66). When people come together as a community of music-makers, they construct musical experiences that are satisfying, relevant, and meaningful, in both individual and collective ways. Within educational settings, the music-making communities that emerge exemplify the inclusive classroom environment Greene (1995) envisioned: A place where students “who come from different cultures and different modes of life” (p.  5) can “discover together against the diversity of their backgrounds” (p. 119), “solve problems that seem worth solving to all of them” (p. 5), and develop “shared norms that are continually remade and revised in light of differing perspectives” (p. 195).

16

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

1.4.4 Music Is a Transformative Phenomenon Freire (1970/1996) reflected upon the ways in which an ideal educational environment is transformative for all involved: Teachers and students “become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (p. 61), and over time, build a shared understanding of “what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future” (p. 65). Jorgensen (2003) applied the notion of transformation to music education, discussing the ways in which music possesses unique power to transform people for the better. She stated, “it (music education) prepares people to care for and about the musical experience, respect and care for the musical traditions of others, and reshape them where necessary. It provides them with the skills to express themselves musically in a variety of ways” and opportunities “to become not only better musicians, but also better people” (p. 144). Elliott et al. (2017) took the notion of “transformation through music” one step further, suggesting people could purposefully use their art to transform the world around them through artistic citizenship. Just as transformative citizens are ready and willing to use their knowledge and skills to make the world a more just and caring place to live and work (Banks, 2015), artistic citizens “act in ways that move people—both emotionally and in the sense of mobilizing them as agents of positive change” (Elliott et  al., 2017, p.  7). These authors asserted, “Artistic citizens are committed to engaging in artistic actions in ways that can bring people together, enhance communal well-being, and contribute to human thriving” (p. 7). Musicians can engage in artistic citizenship by performing at community events, entering into collaborations that celebrate diversity, and writing music that advances or brings attention to social or environmental causes, (just to name a few examples).

1.5 Conclusion Because our world is becoming increasingly diverse and interconnected, it is becoming increasingly important for tomorrow’s citizens (today’s adolescent students) to learn to understand, communicate, and work collaboratively with individuals who come from many diverse cultural backgrounds (Mellizo, 2018). To this point, many global education initiatives have focused on providing students with opportunities to acquire global knowledge and “twenty-first century” skills, but few have focused on helping them establish a strong rationale for using their knowledge and skills to make the world a better place (a global disposition). Yet, it seems reasonable to assume that knowledge and skills will mean very little in a globalized society if individuals do not possess the desire and willingness to apply their knowledge and skills across cultural boundaries with people who have different cultural backgrounds/lived experiences and hold a wide variety of beliefs/values. Moving forward, it will be important to consider where learning experiences designed to cultivate global dispositions can be embedded most naturally within

References

17

existing school curriculum (Mellizo, 2017). I argue educational scholars and practitioners should seriously consider music education as a viable pathway through which today’s students can develop positive global dispositions. Music is global phenomenon, and therefore provides a logical entry point for global learning experiences. Music is a human phenomenon and can open the door to empathy on a global scale. Music is a social phenomenon, and “can serve as a foundation for group belonging” (Regelski, 2016, p. 18). Music is also a transformative phenomenon and can inspire individuals to “become not only better musicians, but also better people” (Jorgensen, 2003, p. 144). This argument forms the basis for the chapters that follow. Part I of this book is largely theoretical. In Chap. 1, I proposed the idea that music education has unique potential to function as a powerful form of global education. In Chap. 2, I summarize a theory from the field of intercultural education (Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity, DMIS) and consider how a construct known as “intercultural sensitivity” can help us understand how global dispositions can be cultivated through educational initiatives. In Chap. 3, I contemplate how the DMIS can explain some of the deeply engrained systemic tendencies that have thus far prevented the field of music education from fulfilling its unique potential in this area. Part II of this book focuses on practical applications, especially for music educators in music classrooms. In Chap. 4, I recommend several developmental changes that might help the field of music education (at the systemic level) move from a mindset characterized by “ethnocentrism” (one’s culture is superior to all others) towards a mindset characterized by “ethnorelativism” (no culture is superior to another). In Chap. 5, I consider how individual educators can recognize and overcome ethnocentric tendencies (in themselves and others), as part of their own journey towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. In Chap. 6, I move this conversation to the classroom level, providing concrete ideas for curricular experiences that can promote higher levels of intercultural sensitivity and foster students’ emerging global dispositions. The final chapter (Chap. 7) is an autoethnographic case study that synthesizes the ideas brought forth in this book through a series of personal reflections on my own experiences as a music student, music educator, and aspiring changemaker.

References Balistreri, S., DiGiacomo, F. T., Noisette, I., & Ptak, T. (2012). Global education: Connections, concepts, and careers. Retrieved from: https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/ publications/2013/6/researchinreview-­2012-­4-­global-­education-­connections-­concepts-­and-­ careers.pdf Banks, J.  A. (2013). Group identity and citizenship education in global times. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(3), 108–112. Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

18

1  Changing Curricula for Global Times: Why Music?

Benedict, C. (2006). Chasing legitimacy: The US national music standards viewed through a critical theorist framework. Music Education Research, 8(1), 3–16. Bruen, J., & Kelly, N. (2016). Language teaching in a globalized world: Harnessing linguistic super-diversity in the classroom. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(3), 333–352. Campbell, P. S. (2013). Children, teachers, and ethnomusicologists: Traditions and transformations of music in schools. In B. Alge & O. Kramer (Eds.), Beyond Borders: Welt-Musik-Padagogik (pp. 13–24). FDR. Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Coon, C. (2000). Culture wars and the global village: A diplomat’s perspective. Prometheus Books. Darrow, A. A. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for students with disabilities and music educators. General Music Today, 30(1), 41–44. Elliott, D. J. (1990). Music as culture: Toward a multicultural concept of arts education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 24(1), 147–166. Elliott, D. J., & Silverman, M. (2015). Music matters: A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Elliott, D. J., Silverman, M., & Bowman, W. D. (2017). Artistic citizenship: Introduction, aims, and overview. In D.  J. Elliott, M.  Silverman, & W.  D. Bowman (Eds.), Artistic citizenship: Artistry, social responsibility, and ethical praxis (pp. 3–21). Oxford University Press. Freire, P. (1970/1996). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books. Gal, D. G. (2005). Global perspectives for teacher education. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (Vol. 6). Elsevier Ltd. Gates, J.  T. (1999). Why study music? In Vision 2020: The Housewright symposium on the future of music education. Retrieved from: https://nafme.org/wp-­content/files/2015/12/8-­ WhyStudyMusic-­by-­J-­Terry-­Gates.pdf Greene, M. (1993). The passions of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the expanding community. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 13–18. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hebert, D. G., & Kertz-Welzel, A. (2016). Conclusions and recommendations. In D. G. Hebert (Ed.), Patriotism and nationalism in music education. Routledge. Heinomen, M. (2012). Music education and global ethics: Educating citizens for the world. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(1), 62–80. Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review, 55(3), 265–275. Jones, P. (2007). Music education for society’s sake: Music education in an era of global neo-­ liberal/neo-medieval market-driven paradigms and structures. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 6(1), 1–28. Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Indiana University Press. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2018). Globalizing music education: A framework. Indiana University Press. Koz, R. P., Jr. (2018). Music education and the well-rounded provision of the every student succeeds act: A critical policy analysis. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(4), 204–216. Mahlmann, J.  J. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts (ED 365 622). Music Educators National Conference Publications. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED365622.pdf Mellizo, J.  M. (2017). Exploring intercultural sensitivity in early adolescence: A mixed methods study. Intercultural Education, 28(6), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/1467598 6.2017.1392488 Mellizo, J. M. (2018). Transformative citizenship education and intercultural sensitivity in early adolescence. World Journal of Education, 8(3), 139–148. Mellizo, J. M. (2019). Music education as global education: A developmental approach. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2019(1), 1–36.

References

19

National Association for Music Education (NAfME). (2015). The every student succeeds act: What it is, what it means, and what’s next. Retrieved from: https://nafme.org/wp-­content/ files/2015/11/ESSA National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS). (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. Retrieved from: https://www.nationalartsstandards. org/sites/default/files/NCCAS%20%20Conceptual%20Framework_0.pdf Nesthinghe, R., Joseph, D., Cabedo-Mas, A., & Mellizo, J. (2023). Teaching songs from culturally diverse settings using a “four step flipped method”. International Journal of Music Education, 41(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761422111095 Nettl, B. (1992). Ethnomusicology and the teaching of world music. International Journal of Music Education, 20, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576149202000101 Regelski, T. A. (2016). Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, & Theory for Music Education, 15(2), 10–45. Reimers, F. (2009). ‘Global competency’ is imperative for global success. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(21), A29. Silverman, M., & Elliott, D. J. (2017). Arts education as/for artistic citizenship. In D. J. Elliott, M. Silverman, & W. D. Bowman (Eds.), Artistic citizenship: Artistry, social responsibility, and ethical praxis (pp. 3–21). Oxford University Press. Tye & Tye. (1992). Global education: A study of school change. State University of New York Press.

Chapter 2

Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

Abstract Although it seems clear that today’s adolescent students need more opportunities to develop positive global dispositions as part of their general education experience, to this point, far more attention has been given to the more essentialist aspects of global education, such as global knowledge and global skills. One potential reason for this discrepancy is the current lack of consensus regarding how to conceptualize and measure the effectiveness of educational initiatives designed to promote key attributes of a global disposition. Within this chapter, I unpack a popular theoretical framework from the field of intercultural education that I believe has great potential to help educators and educational researchers from many different subject areas develop and assess the effectiveness of learning experiences intended to cultivate positive global dispositions (Bennett MJ.  Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In: Michael Paige R (ed) Education for the intercultural experience. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, pp  21–71, 1993; Bennett MJ. From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In: Wurzel JS (ed) Toward multiculturalism. Intercultural Resource Corporation, Newton, pp  62–78, 2004). A general overview of Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) framework is presented and connections between the DMIS and global disposition are explored. Next, I illustrate common behavior patterns at each stage of the DMIS and provide suggestions for learning experiences that can foster intercultural sensitivity and emerging global dispositions. The chapter concludes with a review of relevant research in this area. Keywords  Intercultural sensitivity · Ethnocentrism · Global mindset · Education · Adolescence

This chapter includes several short excerpts from “Applications of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) in Music Education,” by J. M. Mellizo, 2018, a journal article originally published in TOPICS for Music Education Praxis. The author retains copyright for the original article. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_2

21

22

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

2.1 What Is Intercultural Sensitivity? Milton Bennett, a leading scholar in the field of intercultural education, became interested in the notion of intercultural sensitivity after years of observing intercultural training sessions in which “some people seemed to get a lot better at communicating across cultural boundaries while other people didn’t improve at all” (2004, p. 62). He noticed, “As people became more interculturally competent, there was a major change in their quality of experience” (p. 63). According to Bennett, intercultural sensitivity is a construct that falls under the larger umbrella construct of intercultural competence–a term that is often used to describe the “effective or successful behavior” (p. 74) that people exhibit when they encounter cultural difference. Hammer et al. (2003) further clarified this terminology, noting that while the term intercultural competence describes a person’s “ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways,” the term intercultural sensitivity describes a person’s ability to “discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences” (p. 422). In short, the term intercultural competence describes the type of behavior we hope our students will demonstrate in an increasingly interconnected, diverse world, while the term intercultural sensitivity describes the underlying mindset that makes this type of behavior possible. Bennett (1993) hypothesized educational efforts to improve intercultural competence would be more successful if they were informed by a clear and specific framework, based upon “some typical progression of development in learners” (p. 22). Through a grounded theory approach, he developed what is now known as the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), a constructivist framework that describes a set of stages many people pass through as they experience intercultural worldview changes and begin to encounter cultural difference in increasingly complex ways (1993, 2004). Bennett (1993) hoped his framework would help educators develop specific learning experiences and related instructional strategies that would facilitate students’ development toward higher levels of intercultural sensitivity, and ultimately, higher levels of intercultural competence.

2.2 The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) As shown in Fig. 2.1, the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) is comprised of six distinct stages, each of which represents a different intercultural worldview orientation (Bennett, 1993, 2004). Each stage is associated with at least one major issue that must be resolved before the individual can move concretely into the next stage. At its core, the DMIS model assumes “contact with cultural difference generates pressure necessary for change in one’s worldview” (2004, p. 75), which in turn allows the individual to perceive, understand, and experience cultural diversity in increasingly complex ways.

2.2  The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

23

Fig. 2.1  A visual depiction of Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

At the most basic level, the DMIS stages shown in Fig. 2.1 are grouped into two categories based on whether an individual’s overarching worldview is ethnocentric or ethnorelative.

2.2.1 Ethnocentrism The first three stages in the DMIS continuum are considered ethnocentric because “the individual assumes that [their] existence is central to the reality perceived by all others” (Bennett, 1993, p. 30), and therefore, their attitudes, thoughts, and actions are “based on the assumption that [their] worldview is superior” (Olson & Kroeger, 2001, p. 119). Bennett (1993) argued the negative outcomes “commonly attributed to ethnocentrism”, such as racism and “the construction of in-group/out-group distinctions” often stemmed from this “centrality assumption” (p. 30). Denial  A person who embodies the first stage in the DMIS continuum, Denial, “believes that cultural diversity only occurs elsewhere” (1993, p. 30). Because individuals who experience Denial are not aware of or interested in cultural difference, they do not really experience it at all (Bennett, 2004). The key issue to resolve at this stage is “the tendency to avoid noticing or confronting cultural difference” (p. 34). Bennett contended people in the Denial stage need more opportunities to partake in “cultural awareness” activities. Although he acknowledged these types of events (e.g., multicultural events, etc…) are somewhat superficial and not generally effective in terms of fostering true cultural understanding, Bennett argued they would be useful in terms of “facilitating simple recognition of difference” (p. 34)–the main issue that needs to be resolved at this stage of development. Bennett (1993) cautioned educators about the “premature discussion of really significant cultural differences” with people in the Denial stage, asserting, “Such discussion will either be ignored, or more detrimentally, be used as a rationale for maintaining the comfort of denial” (p. 34). Defense  According to Bennett (2004), “the resolution of Denial issues…sets up the conditions for the experience of Defense” (p. 64). During this stage, individuals begin to “experience cultural differences as more real” (p. 65) but feel threatened by them. Bennett discussed two common behavior patterns associated with a defensive intercultural worldview: Denigration and Superiority. Denigration occurs when

24

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

people “counter the threat of difference by evaluate[ing] it negatively” (1993, p. 35), while superiority occurs when people respond to the perceived threat of cultural difference by organizing their reality “into ‘us and them,’ where one’s own culture is superior and other cultures are inferior” (2004, p. 65). To move past this stage, Bennett recommended learning experiences that help learners “establish commonality” (p. 66) between themselves and people of other cultural groups. and encouraged educators to emphasize cultural universals (e.g., kindness, sharing, diligence, faith, courage, and hard work) instead of cultural differences. Minimization  Individuals who experience Minimization “acknowledge culture differences on the surface” but minimize them, because they “consider all cultures fundamentally similar” (Sinicrope et  al., 2007, p.  9). Within this stage, common humanity is recognized and respected, but “elements of one’s own cultural worldview are experienced as universal” (Bennett, 2004, p. 66). Cultural differences no longer seem threatening, but instead they are trivialized (Bennett, 1993). For people of the dominant culture, Minimization “tends to mask recognition of their own culture and the institutional privilege it affords its members” (2004, p. 67). To facilitate movement from Minimization into the more ethnorelative stages, educators should provide opportunities to for students to develop higher levels of cultural awareness. Bennett recommended guided discussions as a means of helping learners (especially those who identify with the dominant culture) understand “more of their own behavior in a cultural context” (p. 45).

2.2.2 Ethnorelativism Bennett (2004) coined the term ethnorelativism to mean “the opposite of ethnocentrism–the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors is just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities” (p. 62). The final three stages in the DMIS are considered ethnorelative because individuals experience their own culture “in the context of other cultures” (1993, p. 68). Hammer et al. (2003) argued people with ethnocentric orientations tend to avoid difference, while people with ethnorelative orientations often seek it. Acceptance  Within the first ethnorelative stage, Acceptance, people respect and are genuinely curious about cultural differences related to both behavior and values. Individuals who experience Acceptance have become more nuanced in their recognition of cultural differences and can “construct culture-general categories that allow them to generate a range of relevant cultural contrasts” (Bennett, 2004, pp.  68–69). Acceptance is further characterized by heightened levels of cultural self-awareness. To move beyond the Acceptance stage, students must resolve the issue of “value relativity” (p. 69). Essentially, they must learn to “lay aside [their] own viewpoints of life and look at other cultures in ways that allow [them] to experience their (alternative) views of reality and truth” (Palmer, 1994, p. 22), and rec-

2.3  Assessing Intercultural Sensitivity

25

ognize that “nobody is more primitive than anybody else; we are all equally civilized, but in different contexts” (Bennett, 2015, p.  13). To facilitate movement through Acceptance, Bennett (1993) recommended learning experiences that encourage students to engage with cultural diversity more often so they can practically apply their intercultural communication skills in authentic ways, perhaps through simulation activities and/or short cultural immersion experiences. At this stage, learners may also be ready for discussions about the ways in which certain cultural differences can lead to issues of marginalization and oppression in societies (Mellizo, 2018). Adaptation  According to Bennett, “Adaptation is the state in which the experience of another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture” (2004, p. 70). When individuals reach Adaptation, they demonstrate high levels of cultural self-awareness, engage in perspective taking, and develop practical skills “for relating to and communicating with people of other cultures” (1993, p. 51). These individuals are ready for tough conversations regarding the ways in which certain behavior and value differences contribute to issues of in inequality, injustice, and oppression in society. To move from Adaptation to Integration, individuals must resolve the issue of “authenticity” (Bennett, 2004). They must discover for themselves “how it is possible to perceive and behave in culturally different ways” (p. 71) while still being themselves. Bennett (2004) argued the answer to this conundrum “seems to lie in defining yourself more broadly–in expanding the repertoire of perception and behavior that is ‘yours’” (p. 71). Individuals who experience Adaptation need frequent and sustained “opportunities for interaction” and “actual face-to-face communication” (1993, p. 58) in an alternative cultural setting. Integration  When individuals reach the final DMIS stage, Integration, they can shift “in and out of different worldviews…without losing themselves…because they define their identities in terms of perspective-shifting and bridge-building” (Bennett, 2004, p. 72). The main distinction between Adaptation and Integration is while people in Adaptation demonstrate the ability to adjust their behavior according to what is appropriate and expected within a given cultural setting, people in Integration do not consciously engage in perspective-taking, and do not cognitively initiate behavior shifts––these skills have simply become part of who they authentically are. According to Bennett, people who experience Integration often serve as “bridge builders in intercultural situations” (p. 72).

2.3 Assessing Intercultural Sensitivity The DMIS is a constructivist framework that was originally developed through grounded theory (Bennett, 2017). Therefore, this framework inherently lends itself well to qualitative research approaches. Since its inception, qualitative techniques such as interviews and open-ended questionnaires have been used in research studies to assess individuals’ levels of intercultural sensitivity in relation to this

26

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

framework. Typically, individuals’ verbal and written responses are used as the basis for determining their approximate placement on the continuum of stages. For example, people who stress the importance of human similarities over human differences within the context of an interview might be experiencing Minimization, whereas people who can describe concrete examples of the ways in which they have initiated conscious behavior shifts to communicate across cultural boundaries might be experiencing Adaptation. Over the past 20 years, several quantitative instruments have also been designed and implemented in accordance with the DMIS framework. Of these, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is by far the most popular. The IDI website (www. idiinventory.com) asserts thousands of people have taken this assessment. The IDI is intended for ages 15 and up and has undergone extensive testing procedures to ensure high levels of reliability and validity (Hammer et al., 2003). This instrument contains 50 statements that correspond to the DMIS stages and utilizes a five-point Likert-type scale. Individuals are asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Most often, this assessment has been used to position individuals along the DMIS continuum, but it has also been used to calculate a continuous overall score (Paige et al., 2003). Although quantitative instruments (such as the IDI) represent “a paradigm shift from the constructivist roots of grounded theory” (Bennett, 2017, p. 6), they have allowed researchers to explore relationships between intercultural sensitivity and other variables and to investigate the effectiveness of intercultural training initiatives in more generalizable ways. The IDI is a now a commercial instrument–and therefore, quite expensive to use. To obtain the license required to administer the IDI, educators/researchers must attend a three-day seminar that costs approximately $1600, plus travel expenses. After licensure has been obtained, it costs $11 per administration of the test. Several alternatives to the IDI have emerged in the literature. In 2001, Olson & Kroeger introduced the Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI), which is a quantitative instrument comprised of 24 items that are directly tied to the DMIS. Individuals are asked to read each statement and respond through a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “describes me extremely well” to “never describes me”. Although the ISI instrument was originally intended for adults, Mellizo (2016, 2017) adapted it for use with early adolescent students (ages 10–14). Holm et al. (2009) and Ruokonen and Kairafuoiri (2012) developed their own research instruments to measure intercultural sensitivity with adolescent students in Finland (ages 12–16). Holm et  al.’s assessment was similar in structure to the IDI. Students were asked to respond to 24 Likert-type statements that corresponded to DMIS stages. Ruoknonen & Kairavuori designed a tool that prompted students to identify how they would respond/behave in hypothetical intercultural interaction scenarios. In each scenario, students were given six possible answers for how they would respond. “Each alternative answer represented one of the six developmental stages from Bennett’s model” (p. 36).

2.4  Limitations of the DMIS and Related Assessment Tools

27

2.4 Limitations of the DMIS and Related Assessment Tools One limitation of the qualitative techniques and quantitative instruments discussed in the previous section is their heavy reliance on self-reporting. Specifically, Sinicrope et al. (2007) argued the accuracy of an individual’s responses on these types of self-report assessments could be affected by factors related to social desirability. For this reason, some researchers have chosen to explore intercultural sensitivity through more direct approaches, using tools such as performance assessments, observations, role-playing scenarios, artifacts, and portfolios. Most recently, researchers have started to collect multiple forms of data through mixed methods approaches to account for the impact of social desirability, and to gain a more comprehensive and accurate account of an individual’s intercultural sensitivity (Sinicrope et al., 2007; Mellizo, 2017). Zafar et al. (2013) pointed out some limitations of the DMIS framework itself. They argued the scientific clarity of this model could be viewed as both a strength and a weakness. On paper, “the stages are very scientifically defined and methodically arranged” and “the definitions of ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages and the characteristics of people at these stages are very believable” (p.  569). However, human behavior rarely fits into such clear-cut categories. An additional limitation of this framework is its “assumed linearity of movement” (Bennett, 2017, p. 7). In reality, individuals move through the continuum in their own way and at their own pace, which may or may not be linear. Therefore, this theory should not be used in a “one-­ size-­fits-all” way. Learning experiences designed to promote growth along the DMIS continuum should always be tailored to fit the unique needs of the people in the learning environment. Bennett himself has acknowledged the potential for occasional retreats through the DMIS continuum, especially during the ethnocentric stages. For example, he noted, “Minimization obscures deep cultural differences…confrontation with these deeper differences may cause people to retreat to the earlier ethnocentric stage of Defense” (2017, p. 4). However, Bennett argued once individuals bridged the divide between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism, movement through the continuum was generally unidirectional. He stated, “People do not easily become more ethnocentric after having developed ethnorelative perceptual structures” (p. 3). Zafar et al. (2013) also pointed out the DMIS model assumes every learner starts the learning process in the Denial stage (beginning of the continuum), which is often not the case. Individuals can begin the learning process at any stage, and in some cases will experience cultural difference in ways that span multiple stages. An additional limitation of this framework is its reliance on the teacher’s level of intercultural sensitivity. Bennett contended teachers should operate at least “one stage beyond that which is being trained for” (1993, p. 66). For example, a teacher who has a goal of moving all their students to the level of Acceptance should operate from an Adaptation worldview.

28

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

2.5 Using the DMIS to Cultivate Global Disposition Despite these limitations, Bennett’s DMIS has great potential to help educators in all subject areas conceptualize the specific ways in which they can help students develop global dispositions within the context of “school”. Bennett himself argued one of the long-term effects of learning experiences tied to this framework was the development of global citizenship (2012). As shown in Table 2.1, key characteristics that have been attributed to global disposition and ethnorelativism in past literature are very similar. Individuals who possess a global disposition are generally aware and accepting of their own and others’ cultural perspectives and engage in intercultural empathy and acts of altruism. In a similar way, students with ethnorelative worldviews (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration stages) have developed a heightened level of cultural self-­awareness, engage in perspective-taking, and are willing and motivated to serve as a bridge between cultures. Even when educators do not formally measure their students’ levels of intercultural sensitivity with a quantitative instrument or through qualitative techniques, they can use their knowledge of the DMIS continuum in informal ways to gauge their students’ levels of intercultural sensitivity and plan lessons accordingly. The developmental nature of this framework is empowering and practical because it breaks this complex and rather overwhelming construct into a series of small, manageable steps. Teachers can use their emerging knowledge of the DMIS stages to inform curricular decisions regarding the types of intercultural learning experiences that will be most beneficial for the students in their classrooms. Table 2.2 contains a list of common behavior patterns and verbal statements that have been associated with each DMIS stage. This table also contains a list of Bennett’s specific recommendations regarding learning experiences that can help students overcome the major issues that often arise during a given stage in the continuum. This information can help educators in all subject areas design and implement intercultural learning experiences that may move their students toward a more ethnorelative worldview, and in doing so, help them develop global dispositions. More ideas and examples, specifically related to learning experiences in the music classroom are provided in Chap. 6.

2.6 Developing Intercultural Sensitivity in K-12 Settings: A Review of the Research Scholars have hypothesized the early skills required for high levels of intercultural sensitivity and communication competence are most likely developed during childhood (Dovigo & Favella, 2012). To this point, however, most research in this area has been conducted with college students and adults (Mellizo, 2017). Over the past twenty years, only a handful of researchers have explored intercultural sensitivity in relation to children and adolescents.

2.6  Developing Intercultural Sensitivity in K-12 Settings: A Review of the Research

29

Table 2.1  Comparison of key characteristics that have been attributed to global disposition and ethnorelativism Characteristics of a Global Disposition/Mindset Awareness and acceptance of one’s own and others’ cultural perspectives Tolerance and understanding across cultural boundaries Curiosity about the world and its people Appreciation of nuances and complexities that exist in the world. Acceptance of common humanity Ability to engage in perspective-­ taking on a global scale (empathy) A concern for and willingness to act based on ethical principles, such as: fairness, equity, and justice on a global scale Possesses a desire to make a positive contribution in the world.

Characteristics of Ethnorelativism Cultural Self-Awareness Awareness of and respect for cultural differences Curiosity about the cultural values and traditions of others Acceptance and appreciation of cultural differences Ability to engage in perspective-taking (empathy) Motivated by ethical principles such as fairness and equity, and has developed the type of worldview structure and coping skills needed to apply these principles in culturally relevant ways Possesses a desire to facilitate constructive contact between cultures (wants to serve as a bridge)

The characteristics shown in Table 2.1 were compiled from: Bennett (1993, 2004, 2011), Tye and Tye (1992), Gal (2005), and Balistreri et al. (2012)

From this limited body of research, several important findings have emerged. Using a modified version of the IDI, Pederson (1997) found that seventh grade students in the north-central region of the United States (n  =  145) exhibited many characteristics of Minimization and Acceptance. Straffon (2003) explored intercultural sensitivity with high school students (ages 13–19) attending an international school in Malaysia and found that 97% of these students fell into the ethnorelative stages of Acceptance and Adaptation. Holm et al. (2009) reported adolescent girls in Finland scored significantly higher than boys on a quantitative assessment designed to measure intercultural sensitivity (ages 12–16). Also in Finland, Ruokonen and Kairafuoiri (2012) found that 71% of the adolescent students in their study (ages 12–16) demonstrated characteristics of ethnorelative worldviews. Mellizo (2017) found that a group of early adolescents in the United States (ages 9–14) experienced cultural difference in a variety of ways, with almost half of the student participants exhibiting strong characteristics of ethnorelative worldviews. In this study, girls again demonstrated significantly higher levels of intercultural sensitivity than boys. In terms of the effectiveness of initiatives designed to cultivate higher levels of intercultural sensitivity and cultural understanding in K–12 settings, Ngai and Koehn (2010) found that K–5th grade students in the United States developed “a new appreciation for, and interest in diverse peoples and issues” (p. 604) after participating in a curriculum intervention that emphasized a “place-based intercultural approach to indigenous education” (p.  597). Students in this study had frequent opportunities to directly interact with and learn from people from several local

Defense

DMIS Stage Denial

“Look Fors” Well intended, yet naïve questions about other cultures Statements of superficial tolerance Categorizing cultural difference into broad categories (foreigner, Asian, people of color) Geographic isolation from cultural difference (homogeneous population) Intentionally separating themself from those perceived to be culturally different An “us”/ “them” mentality Stereotyping/Denigrating or promoting negative stereotypes Evaluating cultural differences negatively Interpreting any positive statement about another culture as an attack on their own “Why can’t they just speak English?” “When I go to another country, I realize how much better mine is” “We could sure teach them a lot” “My culture should be a model for the rest of the world”

What Learners Might Say “Live and let live” “I never experience culture-­shock” “All big cities are the same”

Mitigating polarization Recognizing common humanity

Major issues that must be resolved Recognizing cultural differences

Table 2.2  Using the DMIS framework to design relevant learning experiences for adolescent students Learning Experiences that can facilitate growth through the stage Introduce cultural differences through natural entry points in the curriculum (art, music, literature, theatre, dance, history, economics, holidays, heroes) Plan cultural awareness activities/events (e.g., “Multicultural Night”, International foods day, “World Music” themed concert) Embed differences in the curriculum in nonthreatening ways Promote an inclusive, non-blaming classroom climate Use mediums such as children’s literature, folk tales, and music to highlight the common humanity of all people by highlighting cultural universals and shared goals Avoid cultural contrasts Promote cooperative activities between students who perceive themselves to be members of different cultural groups Teach skills for conflict mediation Facilitate classroom team-building activities

30 2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

“It’s boring if everyone is the same” “It is important to study about a new culture before you go there” “Where can I learn more about this culture?” “It can be confusing when you want to be respectful, but also want to maintain your own values” “We have different life experiences and are learning from each other”

Acceptance

Understanding their own culture as one of many viable and equally complex possibilities Demonstrating respect for cultural differences Articulating clear and accurate categories for defining cultural differences The ability to make cultural contrasts without stereotyping or generalizing Curiosity about the cultural traditions of others

What Learners Might Say “We are all human after all” “We are all children of God” “Deep down, they’re pretty much like us” “Everything will be fine if you just remember to be yourself”

DMIS Stage “Look Fors” Minimization “We are the world” mentality The belief that deep down, everyone is like them Making superficial or stereotypical statements of tolerance Overestimating their level of tolerance

Value relativity Improving communication skills

Major issues that must be resolved Developing cultural self-awareness Developing a more nuanced awareness of cultural differences

(continued)

Learning Experiences that can facilitate growth through the stage Define and explore cultural differences related to race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs, traditions, music, visual art, etc. Facilitate guided discussions that prompt students to explore stereotypes and/or generalizations Invite people from different cultures into the classroom to share their experiences Prompt students to consider more subjective and subtle culture differences, such as non-verbal behavior and communication styles Expand discussion of cultural differences to include value differences Second language acquisition Use of culture-specific frameworks (learning through a new cultural lens) Intercultural communication simulation activities Short cultural immersion experiences Facilitate guided discussions that prompt students to begin considering the privilege of dominant groups within a given society

2.6  Developing Intercultural Sensitivity in K-12 Settings: A Review of the Research 31

“Look Fors” Demonstrating high levels of cultural self-awareness Engaging in perspective-taking and demonstrating intercultural empathy An understanding of how behavior and value differences can contribute to issues of inequality, injustice, and oppression in a society Demonstrating communication and coping skills needed to act in culturally appropriate ways and work collaboratively with people from many different cultural backgrounds Making significant, sustained efforts to become fully competent in a new culture(s) Cognitive shifts in perspective are not needed, because this process has become part of who they authentically are. Identification as a “bridge builder” Possessing a wide variety of cultural perspectives and behavior from which they can draw The belief or feeling that they exist on the “margins” of several different cultures –sometimes they may feel like they are never really “at home” “I can move in and out of cultural groups with relative ease” “I can serve as a bridge between people from different cultural groups” “I can usually look at situations from more than one cultural point of view” “In an intercultural world, everyone should have an intercultural mindset” “Anywhere can be home if you know enough about how things work there”

Since this person feels like he/she is “in-process” – there is always a new cultural perspective from which he/she can learn

Major issues that What Learners Might Say must be resolved Authenticity “I am going to have to change my approach” “They are trying to adapt to my style, so I should meet them halfway” “I can maintain my values and also behave in culturally appropriate ways” “The more I understand about the culture, the better I get at the language”

The information shown in Table 2.2 was compiled from: Bennett (1993, 2004, 2011, 2017)

Integration

DMIS Stage Adaptation

Table 2.2 (continued)

Find ways to help these students serve as resources for others Create opportunities for students to positively interact with peers – especially if they feel like they exist on the “margins” but not really “in” a particular group

Learning Experiences that can facilitate growth through the stage Frequent and sustained opportunities for intercultural interactions (practice) Face-to-face communication in an alternative cultural setting

32 2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

2.6  Developing Intercultural Sensitivity in K-12 Settings: A Review of the Research

33

American Indian tribes. Dovigo and Favella (2012) reported 10–14-year-old students in Italy demonstrated significantly higher levels of intercultural sensitivity after participating in a creative art-based curriculum project. Within the field of music education specifically, Mellizo (2016) found that 4th–8th grade students in the United States demonstrated significantly higher levels of intercultural sensitivity after participating in a culturally diverse music curriculum intervention based on the traditional music of the Fon people in Benin, West Africa. Sousa et al. (2005) found that 7–10-year-old students in Portugal demonstrated significantly lower levels of racial stereotyping after learning a selection of Cape Verdean songs, in addition to their regular music curriculum. Data analysis in a follow-up study elicited similar results, and indicated students maintained these lower levels of racial prejudice two years later (Neto et al., 2016). In combination, the results of these previous research studies indicate K–12 students are very capable of achieving ethnorelative intercultural worldviews. Additionally, these results indicate intercultural sensitivity can be effectively nurtured through targeted educational initiatives with children and adolescents. However more research is clearly needed in this area.

2.6.1 Identity Formation Drummond (2005), a scholar from the field of music education, argued educators and researchers should deeply consider the process of identity formation when designing intercultural learning experiences, especially with younger students. He reminded us that “the attitudes we hold in relation to others” (p. 6) often develop during childhood and adolescence as a natural part of this process. Drummond argued the identity formation process was complex, and often affected by several factors unrelated to school, such as the influence of family members, peers, and the media. Drummond hypothesized students’ identity statuses would directly affect the effectiveness of educational initiatives designed to promote learners’ acceptance of “cultural otherness” (p. 7) and elaborated on the characteristics of four distinct identity statuses. According to Drummond, students with an identity foreclosed status have “accepted the culture, values and beliefs” of their family “and has no desire to change” (p.  6). Therefore, “otherness” is most often judged negatively and ultimately rejected. Students with identity diffused statuses have not yet developed a “sense of personal or cultural identity” (p.  6). When these students experience a low-level introduction to the traditions of another cultural group, they might feel confused. Alternatively, a high immersion cultural experience might elicit a positive response and even “a wholehearted commitment to it” (p. 7). Students with identity moratorium statuses are “in the process of exploring options” (p. 6) and have not yet fully accepted or rejected cultural values that have been adopted by significant people in their lives. For these students, intercultural

34

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

learning experiences in the classroom setting might be received positively or negatively, depending on the situation. Students with identity achieved statuses have already “weathered the pressure” (p. 6) of friends and family and have ultimately developed their own cultural identities based on their own values. According to Drummond (2005), “These students are likely to view other cultures with respect and may even evaluate them as ‘cool’” (p. 7). Since learners with fully formed identity statuses (especially identity foreclosed) may not be as responsive to educational initiatives designed to promote intercultural sensitivity, it seems logical to assume that intercultural learning experiences should be initiated during childhood and early adolescence–before a student’s identity has been fully formed (this is an idea I will return to in Chap. 6). Yet, as this review of literature has indicated, these types of initiatives are somewhat rare in K–12 educational settings and much more common at the university level, where they may be less effective.

2.7 Conclusion Although it seems likely that the building blocks for high levels of intercultural sensitivity are established during childhood and adolescence, most research and practice in this area continues to focus on the experiences of college students and adults. Thus far, relatively few researchers have examined the effects of specific curriculum interventions, strategies, and/or educational approaches intended to cultivate intercultural learning/sensitivity during childhood and throughout adolescence (Mellizo, 2017). Moving forward, practicing educators and educational scholars in all subject areas should consider the potential of Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) to inform intercultural learning experiences in K–12 educational settings. The developmental nature of this framework is both empowering and practical because it breaks a complex (and rather overwhelming) construct into a series of concrete, manageable steps. When educators compare the ways in which their students experience cultural difference to the common characteristics of individual stages, they can design and implement developmentally appropriate intercultural learning experiences that promote growth from ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism and strengthen their students’ emerging global dispositions. In Chap. 3, I will explore how the DMIS framework can also apply to “systems” (in addition to individuals). Specifically, I will identify several long-­ standing ethnocentric tendencies in music education and explain how/why they have limited our field’s unique potential to function as a powerful form of global education.

References

35

References Balistreri, S., DiGiacomo, F. T., Noisette, I., & Ptak, T. (2012). Global education: Connections, concepts, and careers. Retrieved from: https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/ publications/2013/6/researchinreview-­2012-­4-­global-­education-­connections-­concepts-­and-­ careers.pdf Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M. J. (2011). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. IDRInstitute. Retrieved from: http://www.idrinstitute.org Bennett, M. J. (2012). Turning cross-cultural contact into intercultural learning. In Proceedings from the Universidad 2012 8th international congress on higher education. The University for Sustainable Development. Bennett, M. J. (2015). Intercultural consciousness and the construction of citizenship. Presentation for CFC/FSEA conferences, the formation of sustainable citizenship, Monte Carasso, Switzerland. Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y.  Kim (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of intercultural development. Wiley. Dovigo, F., & Favella, C. (2012). Promoting and evaluating creative art-based projects in intercultural education. Paper presented at ECER, 2012, the need for educational research to champion freedom, education and development for all. Drummond, J. (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Why bother? In Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges of the 21st century. Australian Academic Press. Gal, D. G. (2005). Global perspectives for teacher education. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Global trends in educational policy (Vol. 6). Elsevier Ltd. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Holm, K., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. (2009). Relationship of gender and academic achievement to Finnish students’ intercultural sensitivity. High Plains Studies, 20, 187–200. Mellizo, J. M. (2016). Multicultural music education and intercultural sensitivity in early adolescence: A mixed methods study. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wyoming. Mellizo, J.  M. (2017). Exploring intercultural sensitivity in early adolescence: A mixed methods study. Intercultural Education, 28(6), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/1467598 6.2017.1392488 Mellizo, J. M. (2018). Applications of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) in music education. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(2), 46–67. Neto, F., Pinto, M., & Mullet, E. (2016). Can music reduce anti-dark-skin prejudice? A test of a cross-cultural musical education programme. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 388–398. Ngai, P. B., & Koehn, P. H. (2010). Indigenous studies and intercultural education: The impact of a place-based primary-school program. Intercultural Education, 21(6), 597–606. Olson, C. I., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5, 116–137. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Castano, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 467–486.

36

2  Cultivating Global Dispositions by Considering Intercultural Sensitivity

Palmer, A. (1994). On cross-cultural music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 4(1), 19–24. Pederson, P. V. (1997). Intercultural sensitivity and the early adolescent. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Cincinnati, OH. Ruokonen, I., & Kairafuoiri, S. (2012). Intercultural sensitivity of the Finnish ninth graders. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 32–40. Sinicrope, C., Norris, J., & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing intercultural competence: A summary of theory, research, and practice (technical report for the foreign language program evaluation project). Second Language Studies, 26(1), 1–58. Sousa, M. D., Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2005). Can music change ethnic attitudes among children? Psychology of Music, 33(3), 304–316. Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 487–501. Tye & Tye. (1992). Global education: A study of school change. State University of New York Press. Zafar, S., Sandhu, S.  Z., & Khan, Z.  A. (2013). A critical analysis of ‘developing intercultural competence in the language classroom’ by Bennett, Bennett and Allen. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(4), 565–571.

Chapter 3

Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

Abstract  Although music education is inherently multicultural (Elliott D. J. Praxial music education: reflections and dialogues. Oxford University Press, 1995), from a systemic perspective, it is still structured and carried out in surprisingly ethnocentric ways. I argue one step in what is sure to be a lengthy journey towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity in music education should involve making music education “systems” more interculturally-sensitive themselves. In this chapter, I unpack four deeply engrained systemic tendencies that have thus far prevented the field of music education from fulfilling its unique potential to function as a powerful form of global education. As the chapter concludes, I consider how these curricular tendencies can be understood as manifestations of unresolved issues related to the DMIS ethnocentric stages (Denial, Defense, and Minimization). Keywords  Curriculum · Music education · Intercultural sensitivity · Pedagogy · Assessment · Ethnocentrism

3.1 Introduction In the opening chapter of this book, I argued that the field of music education is uniquely positioned to foster adolescent students’ emerging global dispositions— which is imperative as our world becomes increasingly globalized. The active, participatory nature of musical learning experiences can provide students of all ages with authentic opportunities to engage with a variety of music cultures, and to experience them in increasingly complex ways. These experiences can function as a springboard that launches students towards deeper understandings of the world’s music and the people who make it. Yet, our field’s unique potential to function as a powerful form of global education has not yet been realized in practice, perhaps because our underlying “system” has not yet made the critical move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism (Bennett, 2004). As it stands, many school music programs (around the world, but from my perspective, especially in North America) remain deeply entrenched in Western © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_3

37

38

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

European models of music education that reinforce and further perpetuate several ethnocentric and hegemonic tendencies, reach only a small percentage of students, and thus, do little to foster their emerging sense of global identity (Campbell et al., 2014; Carson & Westvall, 2016; Hess, 2018; Kratus, 2007; Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). Change/transformation is clearly needed in music education. This point has already been clearly articulated by a number of prominent scholars in our field (e.g., Allsup, 2016; Jorgensen, 2003; Campbell et al., 2014; Kertz-Welzel, 2018). Yet, I agree with Cutietta (2017), who asserted, “It is unrealistic to expect music teachers in schools to be the main catalyst” (p. 262) for this change. In a similar way, Hess (2015a) argued, “Individual acts, while important, are less significant than working toward systemic change” (p.  70). She continued, “Operating at the individual level … cannot produce the macro change that is so necessary to moving forward” (pp. 70–71). Building from the work of these scholars, I argue that before we can expect individual educators (even those who already possess high levels of intercultural sensitivity themselves) to positively influence their students’ levels of intercultural sensitivity within the context of music classrooms, we must critically examine and propose alternatives to some of the systemic and structural barriers that have impeded fundamental change toward a more inclusive and equitable system in our field. In short, one step in what is sure to be a lengthy journey towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity in music education should involve making music education “systems” more interculturally-sensitive themselves.

3.2 The DMIS and Music Education “Systems” Although the basic principles of Bennett’s DMIS framework have most commonly been used to explain the ways in which individuals experience cultural difference (as described in Chap. 2), they can also be applied and interpreted at the systemic level. Bennett himself explained: More complex organizational structures are parallel to more complex personal structures. Greater intercultural sensitivity in an organization means more complex structures are allowing cultural differences to be perceived more fully. The resulting “climate” regarding cultural difference carries the potential for better resolution of the issues associated with multicultural workforces and global operations (2017, p. 3)

According to Bennett’s work, organizations/systems that operate from a Denial perspective often have no structures (policies and procedures) in place “to recognize and deal with cultural diversity” (2017, p. 3). Defensiveness in organizations is characterized by “rhetoric that exalts the superiority of its cultural roots and its current organizational culture” (p.  4). Systemic Minimization occurs when the “overstressing of ‘unity’ (within an organization) yields too much uniformity” (p. 4). Systemic Acceptance occurs when “the rhetoric and support for ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ exists” (p. 5) but related policies and procedures have not yet been

3.3  Systemic Tendency #1: Homogeneous Musical Content

39

fully developed or implemented. Within organizations/systems that operate from an Adaptation perspective, “policies and procedures are intentionally flexible enough to work without undue cultural imposition in a range of cultural contexts” (p. 5). Within the final ethnorelative stage, Integration, organizations “encourage the construction of third-culture positions based on mutual adaptation in multicultural work groups, with the anticipation that third-culture solutions generate added value” (p. 5). In this chapter, I discuss four deeply engrained ethnocentric tendencies of music education systems, which I argue have thus far prevented the field from fulfilling its potential as a powerful form of global education. As the chapter concludes, I consider how these systemic tendencies can be understood as manifestations of unresolved issues related to the DMIS ethnocentric stages (Denial, Defense, and Minimization).

3.3 Systemic Tendency #1: Homogeneous Musical Content Any discussion about ethnocentrism in music education must address, first and foremost, the ways in which musical content from the Western classical tradition tends to be emphasized, elevated, and privileged within formal music education systems (at all levels). This issue has been pointed out by numerous authors and researchers over the past several decades, yet it continues to persist. In 1995, renowned ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl published an ethnographic account of university music programs in the Midwest region of the United States and observed, “the ‘music’ in schools of music always means exclusively or overwhelmingly, Western classical music” (p. 3). Subsequent results from Legette’s quantitative research study in 2003 supported Nettl’s observations. Legette found that 64% of the practicing K–12 music educators who participated in his study (n = 394) received no training in culturally diverse music traditions during their undergraduate programs. One year later, Campbell (2004) discussed this systemic tendency at length in her book, Teaching Music Globally, and called on practicing music educators at all levels of the system to make “a broader perspective…the norm rather than the exception across the board” (p. xvii). However, there is little evidence to suggest significant system-wide changes have occurred since this time. In 2009, Wang and Humphreys found that undergraduate music students at a major university in the United States spent almost 93% of their time studying, practicing, and performing music content derived from a Western classical perspective. Although these authors acknowledged their results were not generalizable in the strictest sense, they noted the university music school highlighted in their study was fully accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), which suggested “its teacher education program [might] be similar to those of many other large music schools in the USA” (p. 25). Campbell et al. (2014) also argued that “large numbers of music majors graduate with little or no hands-on engagement in music beyond European classical repertory” (p. 19). In 2016, Carson and Westvall

40

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

added their perspectives to this conversation, arguing, “Students who show interest in music outside of the ‘western’ tradition are offered little or no access to this within the curriculum offered by the university” (p. 44). Several authors have explored the negative impact this curricular tendency at the university level has on K–12 music education systems. Drummond (2010) hypothesized the heavy emphasis on Western classical music during teacher training programs subconsciously reinforces new teachers’ natural tendency to privilege music they perceive as “theirs” when entering the field. He argued graduates from these teacher training programs are often “doubly Eurocentric: in their personal tastes and in the curriculum they are teaching” (p. 119). Carson and Westvall (2016) agreed, contending the overwhelming emphasis on one homogeneous set of “standard” repertoire at the university level has produced K–12 music educators who “only possess a specific scope of musical skills, a fact which may inhibit their belief in their abilities to teach new repertoire” (p. 47). Results from several research studies support these arguments. Legette (2003) found that only 35% of the practicing K–12 music educators in his study (n = 394) included what they perceived to be culturally diverse musical repertoire in at least some of their classes and performances, despite their overwhelming belief that culturally diverse music should be included in the curriculum. In 2018, Cain and Walden observed it was still difficult to find practicing music educators who included culturally diverse perspectives in the curriculum to participate in their study about successful practice in this area. Also in 2019, Tuinstra examined the ways in which music educators in British Columbia, Canada included non-Western music in their teaching practices after the implementation of a new provincial-wide curriculum that is more inclusive of culturally diverse musical content. Ultimately, she found that 91% of the practicing music educator participants in her study believed that students should learn music drawn from non-Western traditions, but only 68% acted upon this belief–even with a curricular mandate in place. Koza (2008) has lamented the fact that large numbers of prospective music educators who have an interest in music outside of the Western classical tradition never get the opportunity to offer their “significant gifts to K–12 students” (p. 149) because they are often unable to obtain admission into university music programs, and Kratus (2007) has discussed the impact this curricular tendency has on participation numbers in school music programs. Specifically, he attributed stagnant/ decreasing enrollment numbers in secondary music programs in the United States, at least in some part, to practicing music educators’ failure to incorporate diverse musical genres that students listen to and engage with outside of the school setting. Amongst these authors, there seems to be general consensus that when new music educators graduate from university preparation programs and enter the field, they tend reproduce the system in which they were trained (often Western classical music and related pedagogy) and are unprepared to teach musical content that falls beyond this canon … and thus, this cycle of ethnocentrism continues.

3.4  Systemic Tendency #2: Program Structure

41

3.4 Systemic Tendency #2: Program Structure The underlying “structure” of school music programs, within which the aforementioned homogeneous body of musical content is learned and performed, is another important systemic issue that will need to be confronted and reformed on our journey towards ethnorelativism in the field of music education. More specifically, the large group performance-based model of school music programs, which continues to dominate many secondary music education landscapes (most notably in North American contexts), will need to be challenged and de-centered (Bates, 2013; Cutietta, 2017; Kratus, 2007; Powell, 2021; Regelski, 2016, 2018). Within the United States in particular, the large ensemble performance-based model of music education is culturally engrained (Campbell et al., 2014) and often viewed as the ONLY viable model for secondary school music programs. In many situations, American students who want to continue their musical education after elementary school (often in 6th grade) are expected to enroll in either band, choir, or orchestra or not participate in school music classes at all. This choice essentially ends the formal musical education of thousands upon thousands of young student musicians each year. The results from music education researcher Kenneth Elpus’s longitudinal study on secondary school music participation in the United States support this assertion (2014). Elpus found that only 34% of American public-school students enrolled in at least one music class during their high school years (9th–12th grade) between the years of 1989 and 2009. It is important to point out this number remained stable over a period of almost 20 years, which indicates we have essentially “created an infrastructure that ensures we will reach only a small percentage of the American population” (Cutietta, 2017, p. 260). This prevailing performance-based paradigm in North American music classrooms is frequently driven by a heavy emphasis on competition, which “produces and rationalizes the existence of winners and losers, haves and have-nots” (p. 78). As Bates (2013) points out, this competitive approach “tends to waste a lot of time and resources––considering the small numbers of students who actually continue to engage in music in the same ways outside of school or after they leave school” (p. 78). Daily, students in secondary performance ensembles compete. They compete for chair placements, coveted spots in auditioned ensembles, ratings at solo/ ensemble competitions, and scores/rankings at large-group festivals (just to name a few examples). In many cases (especially when a trophy is on the line), sounding good is prioritized over the enjoyment of making music (Bates, 2013). Although competitive musical environments may very well teach students about the value of hard work, teamwork, perseverance, and resiliency (all important skills), they do very little to prepare them for future lifelong musical engagement and enjoyment (Bates, 2013; Powell, 2021; Regelski, 2002), which we often assert is one of the main purposes of school music programs. The systemic tendency to overemphasize participation in large group performing ensembles like band, choir, and orchestra at the secondary level is also troubling from a social justice perspective because it inherently privileges certain types of

42

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

students. Results from Elpus and Abril (2011) and Elpus (2014) indicate White students are significantly overrepresented within high school music ensembles in the United States, while Hispanic students and students from lower SES households are significantly underrepresented. Some authors have attributed these discrepancies to equity of access (e.g., private lessons, instruments) (Miksza, 2013), while others have cited the disconnect between students’ out-of-school musical/cultural realities/preferences and the music-making opportunities provided through school performing ensembles (Bates et  al., 2020; Kratus, 2007; Regelski, 2016, 2018). Whatever the reason, structural changes will clearly need to be made if we want to ensure a higher percentage of students have access to a comprehensive musical education that is both equitable and personally meaningful, throughout their K–12 school experience. Issues related to the large group performance-based paradigm in secondary music programs become even more magnified at the university level (again, especially in North American contexts). Large-group traditional performance ensembles (wind band, symphony orchestra, and concert choir) comprise the core, around which a collegiate music department is built (Cutietta, 2017). Prior successful participation in high school music ensembles is an unwritten prerequisite for admission into a reputable university music program, which essentially eliminates 4 out of 5 graduating high school seniors from consideration (Elpus & Abril, 2011; Cutietta, 2017). Additionally, university performance ensembles have “fairly established personnel needs” (Cutietta, 2017, p. 255), which directly affect recruiting, admission, financial assistance, and hiring processes. Directors of high-level performance ensembles (who often possess a significant amount of power) want their departments to admit and reward graduating high school musicians who will make their performance ensembles better. Since most major university music programs share a similar structure (Jones, 2017), these schools end up competing against each other to recruit, admit, and provide financial aid to students from a relatively small pool of “mainstream” applicants. Subsequently, these universities also compete for well-­ qualified “mainstream” faculty who have themselves graduated from established and well-respected university programs to teach these students (Cutietta, 2017). The closed program structure described in the previous paragraph does not easily accommodate “students (or instructors) who have learned music outside of the accepted system, be they a classical guitarist, accordion player, pop-style vocalist, or digital artist … regardless of how intellectual or musically talented they are” (Cutietta, 2017, p. 258). Even if these types of students manage to get accepted into a reputable university music program (a feat in itself), Cutietta (2017) and Jones (2017) have contended they are immediately subject to a new type of hierarchy, which also reflects the dominance of performing ensembles within music departments. “Performance” majors are placed at the top of this hierarchy, while students from “non-mainstream musical backgrounds” (Cutietta, 2017, p. 258) and/or music education majors are “stigmatized” and considered “second class” (Jones, 2017, p. 245). Within this hierarchy, “status is attained in a number of ways … such as the applied instrument one plays, the applied teacher with whom one studies, and ensemble and chair placement.” Jones (2017) argued that eventually, most music

3.5  Systemic Tendency #3: Pedagogy

43

education majors adopt the performance values of classical musicians, perhaps as a coping mechanism to deal with feelings that their education degree is somehow “less worthy” than a performance degree.

3.5 Systemic Tendency #3: Pedagogy In addition to ethnocentric tendencies related to homogeneous musical content and the underlying performance-based, competitive structure of many school music programs, scholars have taken issue with the dominance of certain pedagogical approaches in music education (which is often directly related to the musical content chosen to teach). Most often, authors have discussed the ways in which music learning experiences in formal settings are framed almost exclusively through a Westernized lens. As an example, teaching students to proficiently read written staff notation remains a primary goal (if not the primary goal) in many formal music education settings--despite the fact that most of the world’s population learns music almost exclusively by ear (Koza, 2001). Nettl (1995) stated, “Music to Music Building society is notated music” (p. 36). Alternative methods of music transmission (e.g., aural, or other written methods) are often pushed to the margins of the curriculum or ignored altogether (Schippers, 2010). As Regelski has pointed out (2018), sometimes, the written musical score is actually viewed as “the music” itself. Some music education scholars have also questioned the common practice of analyzing, interpreting, and explaining the characteristics of ALL musical examples through a “concepts-based” approach (e.g., identifying form, texture, harmony, dynamics, etc.). David J. Elliott (1989) and Peter Dunbar-Hall (2005) (among others) have argued this analytical approach to understanding music is often not appropriate, and in some cases “contradicts the ways the music’s creators may have of conceptualizing their music and its meanings” (Dunbar-Hall, 2005, p. 128). Yet, this pedagogical tendency remains deeply embedded in music curriculum documents, and thus, current teachers’ practices at all levels of the system (Hess, 2015b). In his book, Re-Mixing the Music Curriculum, Randall Allsup poked fun at this music education norm, stating, “Form, allegedly, appears to be so fundamental to musical experience that its understanding must be taught as soon as linguistically possible. (I want to ban all lessons on ABA form immediately from student-teaching practicums)” (2016, p. 21). Regelski (2018) took a more serious approach to this issue, asserting that the practice of analyzing all music traditions through a Western concept lens (e.g., harmony, form, forte, piano, andante, allegro, staccato, legato, etc.) functioned as a continued form of colonization and exploitation. Hess (2013) pointed out additional problems that can arise when these types of analytical conversations occur without contextualization. Specifically, she warned about the ways in which engagement with unfamiliar music without appropriate contextualization could “facilitate the essentialization of a culture–through a stereotype” (p. 78). For this reason, she asserted, “A mandate of contextualization is necessary when studying all musics” (p. 84).

44

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

In addition to the aforementioned issues related to transmission norms and analytical approaches, certain skills that are important in the Western classical tradition, such as technical precision and appropriate interpretation tend to be prioritized over other types of musical skills related to creativity, improvisation, and composition in many music classrooms (Campbell et al., 2014). Allsup (2016) attributed this systemic tendency to the widespread acceptance of a Master-Apprentice pedagogical approach, within which “the Master” (one who has earned authority through previous accomplishments) decides which technical skills are most important and how the musical score should be interpreted. Within this type of learning environment, it is “the Apprentice’s” job to absorb knowledge, follow directions, and emulate the teacher’s actions. This approach allows very little room for creativity and/or student voice until the teacher (“Master”) decides the student has mastered what they have determined are “the basics”. The tendency to place certain pedagogical approaches (e.g., Master-Apprentice; Kodaly, Orff-Schulwerk, etc.) and their resulting musical knowledge and skills in a distinct position of power over other viable approaches that prioritize different types of musical knowledge and skills is indicative of a larger hegemonic issue that affects not only music education, but the field of education in its widest sense. Many authors (especially within the field of multicultural education) have discussed the ways in which educational systems have historically served to reproduce the biases and assumptions of the dominant culture within a given society (the “status quo”). In doing so, these educational systems inherently give “students who possess the cultural capital of the dominant class…a significant advantage in terms of school success” (Banks & Banks, 2013, p. 30). Relating this idea to my previous discussion about the dominance of large-group performance ensembles within university music programs, “performance” majors possess the most “cultural capital” because they have previously been trained through pedagogical approaches that are valued and prioritized by university professors (e.g., private lessons, master/apprentice, etc.). This type of student musician possesses a great deal of privilege from the moment that they audition for acceptance into a university program because they already adhere closely to values that faculty members (most of whom were trained exclusively in the tradition of Western art music themselves) hold dear (performing with technical precision, sight-­reading, choosing “appropriate” literature, attention to detail, “appropriate” interpretation, etc.) (Jones, 2017; Koza, 2008). This is the type of student who will be most receptive to the ongoing Master/Apprentice-type training they will receive at the university level.

3.6 Systemic Tendency #4: Assessment As I previously stated, secondary-level students who possess the most “cultural capital” have a distinctly better chance of being accepted into reputable university music programs than students who do not. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that

3.6  Systemic Tendency #4: Assessment

45

these decisions are not usually made based on the whims of the faculty members who happen to be in the room during the audition process. Those in charge of making these difficult decisions almost always have some sort of assessment tool (rubric) that they use to determine who gets in and who does not in a systematic and thus, “fair” manner. This scenario provides the starting point from which I will discuss how the field of music education’s movement towards outcomes-based assessment practices has deepened some of the ethnocentric curricular tendencies I have previously described in this chapter. Many educational fields have moved towards outcomes/standards-based (rather than student-centered or experienced-based) curriculum and assessment practices over the past several decades, and music education is no exception to this trend (Barrett, 2017; Benedict, 2006; Kertz-Welzel, 2018; Mellizo, 2020; Payne et  al., 2019). In 2019, Payne et al. asserted, “Using assessment data for accountability is now an expectation of policymakers and administrators” (p. 37). Authors have cited various reasons for the outcomes-based trend in education. Kertz-Welzel (2018) pointed out the prevalence of neoliberal educational theory worldwide, which closely links education with economy, “puts huge pressure on educational systems, and leads to the need for assessing their success” (p. 19). Kertz-Welzel also noted the perceived need for more international comparisons in an increasingly globalized world, and contended politicians tend to favor outcomes-based systems because “standards” and assessment results “help them assure the public that they have done everything they could to improve the educational system” (p. 45). Several authors have cited advocacy as a reason for widespread acceptance of the outcomes-based paradigm in the field of music education. Benedict (2006) contended the increased focus on “standards” and “outcomes” in music education was an attempt to achieve “legitimacy” by providing “evidence to the fact that learning music is measurable and, as a result, a necessary ‘basic’ discipline” (p. 19). Payne et al. (2019) asserted, “Essentially, the assessment process can provide critical and invaluable information to advocate for the existence of a music program” (p. 41). Within outcomes-based educational systems in general, learning outcomes that are prioritized and subsequently assessed reflect and reinforce societal and cultural assumptions about the types of knowledge and skills that are important and valued (Regelski, 2018). Within the field of music education specifically, most learning outcomes and related assessment tools are conceived almost exclusively through a Westernized lens and can therefore be understood as “byproduct(s) of larger forces and powerful assumptions” (Benedict, 2006, p.  20). Student achievement/knowledge/learning in the music classroom is almost always assessed in relation to Eurocentric terminology and concepts (e.g., identifying music elements such as form, texture, harmony, dynamics, etc.), transmission norms (e.g., reading and performing music using staff notation), and subjective indicators of performance quality (e.g., tone quality, blend, vocal technique, intonation), regardless of the cultural setting from which the musical experience is drawn. These assessment norms are ethnocentric because they assume all people, in all places, think about and transmit music, and demonstrate high levels of musical proficiency/achievement in similar ways, which is simply not the case (Regelski, 2004).

46

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

In addition to being ethnocentric, these mainstream assessment practices are hegemonic, because once again, they inherently privilege certain types of musical learners while disadvantaging others. As an example, sight-reading written staff notation is widely regarded as a skill that is “universal” and “essential” to every student’s musical development. Mastery of this specific skill is therefore prioritized in school settings–especially when it comes time for end-of-term tests/grading and/ or auditions for “honor” ensembles. Even though a student’s ability to sight-read staff notation has virtually no impact on his/her ability to learn and perform musical repertoire at a high level, this skill is used to differentiate between musicians who are “good enough” to receive high grades and participate in “select” performance ensembles and those who are not. This grading practice (among others) creates significant barriers for some musical learners (e.g., those who prefer an aural approach or those who are visually impaired). It arbitrarily denies certain students access to potentially transformative, life-changing experiences (e.g., honor ensembles). In some cases, these students (many of whom are outstanding musicians) receive lower grades in their music classes, which can ultimately hurt their GPA and/or cause them to drop out of school music classes altogether. Returning to the example I used to open this section  (audition processes for admission into university music programs), assessment rubrics that are used to decide the fate of applicants are based on a set of desired outcomes, which are deeply influenced by many of the Westernized norms that have previously been mentioned–especially those related to the knowledge (e.g. scales, key signatures, appropriate repertoire, etc.) and skills (e.g. sight-reading/singing, technique, tone, interpretation, etc.). At the end of the process, the scores obtained from these rubrics are used to determine who is accepted and who is rejected. Although the faculty members who comprise audition committees are probably doing their best to be “fair”, “the system is set up in a way that rewards compliance with the norm” (Cutietta, 2017, p. 257). The system itself prevents these faculty members from acting equitably (Koza, 2008). Ethnocentric assessment practices affect musical groups in addition to individual musicians. As an example, judges at music competitions and festivals, who are often locally or regionally renowned musicians or celebrated music educators themselves, take on the role of “performance Master” whose primary job is to uphold “historically coded practices” (Allsup, 2016, p. iv). Again, “the observable and measurable are privileged” (p. ii) and performing groups that adhere most closely to the values and expectations of the dominant perspective (Allsup referred to this idea as “the Law”) are rewarded with the highest ratings/scores and are lauded for their “excellence” and high levels of “achievement.” In some cases, these scores and ratings are used as the basis for evaluating music educators’ job performance––a practice that privileges certain types of teachers and disadvantages others. This observation is not meant to discredit music educators who lead their students to high levels of excellence from a Western classical perspective. Their efforts should absolutely be recognized and celebrated. However, teachers that consciously choose to prioritize different types of goals in the music room (e.g., student voice/choice, creativity, non-traditional instrumentation and/or ensembles, life-long learning, etc.) should not be penalized for these choices.

3.8 Systemic Defense in Music Education

47

3.7 Systemic Denial in Music Education Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse – Winston Churchill

At least in some ways, the ethnocentric tendencies described in the previous sections (the continued dominance of one type of musical content and certain pedagogical approaches/assessment practices; the prevalence of large ensemble performance/competition-based paradigms as the dominant program structure in some parts of the world) can be attributed to unresolved issues related to the DMIS stage Bennett called Denial: Because these norms have been so deeply engrained for so long, many people within music education systems have unequivocally accepted them as “just the way things are” (Bennett, 2004, p. 62) and simply cannot (or do not want to) fathom how things could be different. Denial occurs when we focus too much on what has been (tradition) and too little on what could be (innovation) (Allsup, 2016). It can be understood as a hidden curriculum that upholds one conceptualization of music (W.A.M. and related pedagogy) above all others (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). Although assumptions and subsequent actions related to Denial are often unintentional, they are very problematic. The Denial worldview limits the potential of music education and music educators to cultivate global disposition, and effectively ensures only a small percentage of students will have access to musical learning opportunities as they progress through their “school” experience (Elpus, 2014; Kratus, 2007). It is important, however, to acknowledge the progress some music education systems have already made towards resolving some of the common issues related to the first stage in Bennett’s DMIS framework––Denial. As an example, many music departments around the world have implemented some type of diversity requirement and/or offer trainings in this area. Some music programs are actively seeking to add additional/more diverse courses to the curriculum. Some systems have even begun to adjust the wording of curricular documents to be more inclusive of cultural and musical difference (e.g., 2014 US National Music Standards). These are positive steps in the right direction that should be recognized and celebrated. Yet, it is important to remember that the resolution of issues related to Denial can sometimes launch people (and systems) squarely into Defense (Bennett, 2004).

3.8 Systemic Defense in Music Education Guilt and defensiveness are bricks in a wall against which we all flounder; they serve none of our futures – Audre Lorde

According to Bennett’s work (1993; 2004; 2017), the Defense worldview is technically “more interculturally sensitive”, than the Denial worldview, but still has very negative ramifications. Systemic Defense can occur when people within a given system/organization (especially those who hold positions of power and/or prestige)

48

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

have become “wide-awake” (Greene, 1995) to the possibility of alternative paradigms and/or practices but react in negative ways. Regarding music education specifically, a defensive worldview can become more widespread when people within an organization (e.g., national organizations, university music departments) begin to feel like their own musical/cultural traditions and values (e.g., Western art music and its related pedagogy as the core of formal music education systems) are somehow being threatened. Common indicators of a music education system that is operating from a defensive perspective include hesitation (or refusal) to add new courses to the curriculum and/or diversify repertoire in the classroom, widespread resistance to the idea that grading/audition procedures should be adjusted in order to make them more inclusive/equitable, an unhealthy emphasis on (or culture of) competition, and/or superficial compliance with (or perhaps even defiance of) system-­ sponsored diversity/multicultural policies/mandates/trainings. Music educators, administrators, and policy makers within a defensive system sometimes try to justify this worldview orientation by asserting the superiority of the status quo––they operate under the assumption that the system that is in place is objectively “better” than any possible alternatives. Individuals within a Defense-­ oriented music education system might declare their moral and ethical responsibility to pursue “excellence”, maintain high standards, and/or expose students to the “best” musical literature. In certain situations, these individuals might even resort to denigration–insinuating that those who advocate for changes want to “lower the standards”–perhaps because they lack the talent and/or the work ethic required to achieve “excellence”. From a U.S. perspective, issues related to systemic Defense in music education were thrust into the national spotlight in 2016, when the acting executive director of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME), Michael Butera, made several denigratory statements at a meeting arranged by the National Endowment for the Arts, arguing that the continued lack of diversity in music education was “due to the fact that Blacks and Latinos lack[ed] the keyboard skills needed for this field” (Campbell, 2018, p.  23) and suggesting “that music theory was a difficult subject of study for minorities” in particular (pp.  23–24). These comments indicated a defensive worldview within the national organization, and ultimately led to Butera’s resignation from the NAfME board. The organization thanked him for his service to their purpose and mission and subsequently chose another classically trained, organization insider to be his successor. In doing so, they missed a clear opportunity to demonstrate growth through the DMIS continuum by hiring a candidate with more diverse experiences to replace him.

3.9 Systemic Minimization in Music Education Music is the universal language of mankind – Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Many of the examples of ethnocentrism that I have identified in this chapter are most closely related to Minimization, a stage characterized by the

3.9 Systemic Minimization in Music Education

49

acknowledgement of cultural diversity at a superficial level, or as Campbell et al. (2014) stated, the “politically correct acceptance of diverse cultures” (p. 21). Again, Minimization is technically more interculturally sensitive than Denial and Defense. However, it is still inherently ethnocentric. Systemic Minimization in music education occurs when diversity and inclusion rhetoric is present but not supported by action that is meaningful. For example, a university music department might offer more “diverse” courses without adjusting the requirements for their students’ course of study. The addition of new courses (e.g., multicultural musics, popular music, “world” music ensembles) does suggest “a perceived openness to diversity” (Bradley, 2017, p. 209), but does not disrupt the status quo in a meaningful way. Most music majors will not be able to take advantage of these offerings because their schedules are already full of required courses. Written music curriculum documents are often teeming with similar contradictions. Musical and cultural diversity is acknowledged, but only on the surface. As an example, the 2014 U.S. National Music Standards document mentions music from outside the Western classical tradition (e.g., “identify the context of music from a variety of genres, cultures, and historical periods”) and acknowledges multiple conceptualizations of musical literacy (e.g., “use standard and/or iconic notation and/or audio/video recording to document musical ideas”). Yet, related assessment tools continue to place a strong emphasis on reading and writing music through standard written staff notation, and identifying Western music concepts such as dynamics, articulation, harmonic structure, and phrasing (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). Additionally, performance rubrics associated with these standards impose ethnocentric and subjective indicators of music quality regardless of the norms in the cultural setting from which the music is drawn. As an example, the vocal performance rubric included in the assessment document that accompanies the 2014  U.S.  National Music Standards includes a distinct category for Vocal and Consonant Pronunciation. According to the rubric, a student who meets proficiency for this standard “sings with tall vowels” (https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ mca/music). Yet, singing with “tall vowels” is not an indicator of quality in many vocal genres (e.g., various African traditions, Hindustani vocal music, some “popular” music). When we apply this performance rubric to ALL vocal music (without making adjustments based on norms in the cultural setting), we send a clear message that one way of singing is always preferred over others. In combination, these curricular tendencies continue to communicate an underlying message that is not explicitly stated: Western classical musical values and priorities are objective and universal. Earlier in this chapter, I discussed the audition processes used for admission into university music programs, which are often based on desired outcomes related to Western classical norms (e.g., scales, key signatures, repertoire selection, sight-­ reading, tone, appropriate interpretation, etc.). This issue, which directly affects “who” the next generation of music teachers will be, essentially ensures this perpetual cycle of Minimization in music education will continue. The piano proficiency exam, which is still required in many university music education programs, provides yet another example of systemic Minimization because

50

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

it assumes that piano skills are universal and imperative for success in all areas of music education. The popular program, El Sistema, a “music education program designed initially to elevate the Venezuelan poor” (Bates, 2014, p. 314), provides another interesting example of systemic Minimization. As a program, El Sistema has often been touted as a shining example of social justice education (Baker, 2016), and proponents have praised its unique potential to break the cycle of poverty (Bates, 2016). Since its inception in 1975, the El Sistema program has grown and has spread to many other locations around the world, including the United States and many parts of Europe. However, it is important to remember that El Sistema relies heavily on the idealization of classical orchestral music. Although El Sistema certainly tugs at the heartstrings by “combining children, classical favorites, and a heartwarming story” (p. 11), some authors have argued educators, supporters, and funders do not fully recognize (or fail to acknowledge) the ways in which this particular program (and others that idealize/romanticize one form of music making above others) assumes certain groups of people “ought to be reformed culturally” (Bates, 2014, p. 318), and therefore minimizes/marginalizes the importance of various local music traditions and their related practices. Additionally, El Sistema idealizes the hierarchical structure of the orchestra itself (Baker, 2016). Baker (2016) argued individuals in performing groups at the very top of the El Sistema orchestral pyramid “enjoy extraordinary privileges (very high salaries, top-of-the-range instruments, world tours” … while “those at the bottom (endure) considerable hardship (economic and material scarcity, poor facilities)” (p. 18). Like Bennett (2004), I believe “cultural self-awareness” and “value relativity” (understanding the current status quo as only one of many viable options) will be the key issues the field of music education will need to resolve in order to bridge the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. To open this section of the chapter, I used a quote that emphasized the universality of music. To move past Minimization in our field, I argue we will need to confront and move past this assumption of universality through intentional and meaningful action. Music is not a universal language, and that is okay. Music might more accurately be described as consisting of “several languages that … have certain sounds in common” (Heinomen, 2012, p. 66), but even then, we should be mindful of the ways in which musical meaning is deeply influenced by contextual factors, in addition to sounds. Moving forward, we should strive to enact and implement policies and practices that reflect this reality (Chap. 4 will provide more practical suggestions).

3.10 Too Much, Too Soon? Clearly, resolving deeply engrained systemic issues related to content, program structure, pedagogy, and assessment in the field of music education will not be an easy task. The work of the authors who comprised the College Music Society’s Task Force for the Undergraduate Music Major (TFUMM) in 2014 provides an excellent

3.10  Too Much, Too Soon?

51

illustration of this point. After engaging in many “intensive discussions” (Campbell et al., 2014, p. 7) over a period of eighteen months, this task force (comprised of eight well-respected and influential scholars in the field of music education) released their final report, which was entitled, A Manifesto for Progressive Change in the Undergraduate Preparation of Music Majors. Within the introductory section of this report, the authors acknowledged the “long line of (previous) reform efforts” (p.  15) intended to “improve ways of teaching and learning music” (p.  14), but argued these efforts had resulted in little more than “surface adjustments–what might be best characterized as ‘curricular tinkering’–at the expense of the systemic, foundational overhaul necessary for today’s and tomorrow’s worlds” (p. 15). They subsequently went on to suggest several large-scale, foundational, systemic changes to undergraduate music major curricula in the United States, arguing these changes were overdue and necessary to prepare students for a world that “is vastly different from the one around which the field has typically been conceived” (p. 10). They even went so far as to suggest the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) accreditation criteria should be changed to incentivize institutions to implement some of their recommendations and thus, “break free from the conventional mold” (p. 56). When this report was initially released, the authors predicted their “manifesto” would stir up controversy and provoke some negative reactions. They were right. Although their recommendations were “enthusiastically received by many” (especially amongst scholars in specialties like composition, jazz, music education, and ethnomusicology), this document was strongly criticized by some university-level faculty members and musicians in other specialty areas (Campbell, 2016, p. 2). As an example, Snodgrass (2016) observed many individuals within the music theory community felt the document lacked evidence-based research, “mischaracterized actual teaching practices” in their area, and promoted “a polarization between those who support[ed] it and those who [did] not” (pp. 1–2). The recommendations made by the TFUMM led to several lengthy blog posts by music educators and scholars (and subsequent heated discussion in the comments sections). In some situations, the discourse remained civil as contributors to the conversation debated whether the task force’s recommendations encouraged or discouraged open dialogue and discussed the extent to which university music programs were considering implementing the suggested changes (Burstein, 2015). In other cases, blog posts and subsequent comments included strong, negatively charged terms such as “sinister” and “vulgar” to describe the document’s contents (Balio, 2015). According to Torres-Ramos (2015), the College Music Society (CMS) eventually recalled this report for revision and approval by the organization’s board, a move that he equated to “Congress sending a bill back to committee limbo” (p. 20). Ultimately, a copy-edited version of this report was re-released by the CMS in 2016. At this point, little is known about the extent to which university music departments in the United States have implemented the task force’s recommendations. Anecdotally, I happen to agree with many of the large-scale reforms recommended by the TFUMM (and the direct language they used in the original version of their report to emphasize the need for a system-wide overhaul). Yet, I must

52

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

wonder if the venom with which some individuals and groups of people within the music education community attacked the task force’s recommendations for change indicates their “manifesto” might have been too much, too soon. Moving forward, I think we can learn an important lesson from the aftermath of this noble attempt to enact large-scale change in our field. Change (especially sweeping, foundational change) can be overwhelming and uncomfortable and therefore takes time … sometimes more time than we would like. Although it is difficult to be patient (especially when certain taken-for-granted practices seem out-of-date and grossly inequitable), significant changes to a music education “academy” that has flourished for many years will ultimately require much more than the consensus of a small group of prominent scholars. To be implemented in meaningful, consistent, and sustained ways, foundational systemic changes (such as those recommended by the TFUMM) will require higher levels of buy-in and advocacy from a wide variety of stakeholder groups in the music education community (e.g., national and state associations, special interest groups, market forces, university faculty members, university administrators and department heads, practicing K-12 music educators, etc.).

3.11 Conclusion: Initiating a “Developmental” Approach to Systemic Change I remain cautiously optimistic that we can and ultimately will overcome the deeply engrained ethnocentric tendencies that continue to persist in the field of music education (related to content, program structure, pedagogy, and assessment). However, I also believe that we would be wise to adopt the strategy of the tortoise (as opposed to the hare) as we embark on our journey towards a more diverse, flexible, inclusive, and equitable system. Slow and steady is what will ultimately win this race. By taking small, developmentally-appropriate steps in the right direction, we can make progress that is “modest but meaningful” (Kratus, 2014, p.  346) toward our ideals–-without overwhelming and/or alienating well-meaning colleagues and friends who happen to be more resistant to the proposed changes for one reason or another. After all, “change does bring with it a certain justifiable fear. All change, regardless of how well-intentioned or well-conceived, carries with it the possibility of inadvertent disaster, and change does not come with a moneyback guarantee” (p. 340). Because the idea of sweeping large-scale changes can be daunting and downright frightening to some, music education scholar John Kratus (2014) asked aspiring changemakers to consider the ways in which “small acts of subversion (SAS)” (p. 346) could provide a powerful pathway towards meaningful and sustainable changes in music education. Although Kratus predicted small acts of subversion would not help us reach the finish line anytime soon, he argued that over time, “SAS after SAS undermines the status quo and systematic change occurs” (p. 346).

References

53

Although “No theory can reveal all the workings of a complex phenomenon or process” (Kratus, 2014, p. 341), theories do have great potential to help us better understand some of the factors that influence the complex process of educational change. I argue Bennett’s DMIS theory can help us identify which “small acts of subversion (SAS)” will be most effective as we embark on this journey toward higher levels of intercultural sensitivity in music education. The DMIS is empowering because it breaks the often-overwhelming process of large-scale systemic change/transformation into smaller, more manageable steps. If music educators, scholars, researchers, administrators, and other stakeholders can dialogue and learn to work together, taking small steps towards changing some of the taken-for-granted systemic practices and rigid structures that have persisted in our field for generations, we can create a stronger, flexible, and more inclusive system, within which individual music teachers will be empowered to help students from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, with a wide variety of previous experiences, achieve musical fulfillment and success within school music classrooms and develop into more interculturally-sensitive and globally-aware adults. The second half of this book (Chaps. 4, 5, 6, and 7) focuses on practical applications of the theoretical foundations that have been unpacked in Chaps. 1, 2, and 3. Specifically, I hope to help music education scholars and practitioners (and scholars and practitioners in other educational fields) imagine how they might be able put some of these rather abstract ideas to immediate use in classroom settings. In Chap. 4, I use the DMIS theory to suggest several small, developmentally appropriate steps we can take to make music education systems more interculturally sensitive. Chapters 5 and 6 move this conversation to the classroom level. First, I consider the importance of educator intercultural sensitivity. Second, I reflect on how teachers can use knowledge of the DMIS to design relevant learning experiences that prompt the students in their classrooms to look beyond themselves and recognize, accept, adapt to, and celebrate the human differences that exist all around them. In Chap. 7, I synthesize the most important points brought forth in this book through an autoethnographic reflection, illustrating how these ideas have shaped my professional identity as a music educator and have transformed my underlying worldview and teaching practices.

References Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Indiana University Press. Baker, G. (2016). Editorial introduction: El Sistema in critical perspective. Action, Criticism, & Theory in Music Education, 15(1), 10–32. Balio, A. (2015, October 16). Mastery, not “creativity” should come first in arts education. The James G.  Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2015/10/ mastery-­not-­creativity-­should-­come-­first-­in-­arts-­education/ Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2013). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (8th ed.). Wiley.

54

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

Barrett, M.  S. (2017). Policy and the lives of school-age children. In P.  Schmidt & R.  Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 175–190). Oxford University Press. Bates, V.  C. (2013). Music education unplugged. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 12(2), 75–90. Bates, V.  C. (2014). Rethinking cosmopolitanism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 13(1), 310–327. Bates, V. C. (2016). Foreward: How can music educators address poverty and inequality? Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 15(1), 1–9. Bates, V. C., Gossett, J. B., & Stimeling, T. (2020). Country music for diverse and inclusive classrooms. Music Educators Journal, 107(2), 28–34. Benedict, C. (2006). Chasing legitimacy: The US national music standards viewed through a critical theorist framework. Music Education Research, 8(1), 3–16. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed). Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y.  Kim (Ed.), International encyclopedia of intercultural development. Wiley. Bradley, D. (2017). Standing in the shadows of Mozart: Music education, world music, and curricular change. In R. D. Moore (Ed.), College music curricula for a new century (pp. 205–222). Oxford University Press. Burstein, L.  P. (2015). CMS task-force manifesto. Music Theory Musings. https://president72. wixsite.com/smt-­president-­blog#!CMS-­TaskForce-­Manifesto/c193z/3E7D9A9E-­AE83-­4495-­ 86A1-­53CA568D27A2 Cain, M., & Walden, J. (2018). Musical diversity in the classroom: Ingenuity and integrity in sound exploration. British Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 5–19. Campbell, P.  S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, experiencing culture. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2016). The manifesto in motion: Change comes to undergraduate music studies. College Music Symposium, 56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26574450 Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Campbell, P. S., Myers, D., & Sarath, E. (2014). Transforming music study from its foundations: A manifesto for progressive change in the undergraduate preparation of music majors. College Music Society. Carson, C., & Westvall, M. (2016). Intercultural approaches and ‘diversified normality’ in music teacher education: Reflections from two angles. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 15(3), 37–52. Cutietta, R. A. (2017). K–16 music education in a democratic society. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 253–265). Oxford University Press. Drummond, J. (2010). Re-thinking western art music: A perspective shift for music educators. International Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 117–126. Dunbar-Hall, P. (2005). Training, community, and systemic music education: The aesthetics of Balinese music in different pedagogic settings. In Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges of the 21st century (pp. 125–132). Australian Academic Press. Elliott, D.  J. (1989). Key concepts in multicultural education. International Journal of Music Education, 13, 11–18. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford University Press. Elpus, K. (2014). Evaluating the effect of no child left behind on U.S. music course enrollments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(3), 215–233. Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 128–145.

References

55

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Heinomen, M. (2012). Music education and global ethics: Educating citizens for the world. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(1), 62–80. Hess, J. (2013). Performing tolerance and curriculum: The politics of self-congratulation, identity formation, and pedagogy in world music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(1), 66–91. Hess, J. (2015a). Upping the ‘Anti-’: The value of an anti-racist theoretical framework in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 62–92. Hess, J. (2015b). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. Hess, J. (2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. Jones, P. M. (2017). Policy and higher education. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 241–250). Oxford University Press. Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Indiana University Press. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2018). Globalizing music education: A framework. Indiana University Press. Koza, J. E. (2001). Multicultural approaches to music education. In C. A. Grant & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Making schooling multicultural: Campus and classroom (2nd ed., pp.  239–258). Prentice Hall. Koza, J. E. (2008). Listening for whiteness: Hearing racial politics in undergraduate school music. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 16(2), 145–155. Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–48. Kratus, J. (2014). The role of subversion in changing music education. In C. Randles (Ed.), Music education: Navigating the future (pp. 340–346). Routledge. Legette, R. M. (2003). Multicultural music education: Attitudes, values, and practices of public school music educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 51–59. Mellizo, J.  M. (2020). Music education, curriculum design, and assessment: Imagining a more equitable approach. Music Educators Journal, 106(4), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432120917188 Mellizo, J., & Cabedo Mas, A. (2022). Global mindset and music education: A comparison of curriculum documents in the United States and Spain. Arts Education and Policy Review, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2022.2070887 Miksza, P. (2013). The future of music education: Continuing the dialogue about curricular reform. Music Educators Journal, 99(4), 45–50. Nettl, B. (1995). Heartland excursions: Ethnomusicological reflections on schools of music. University of Illinois Press. Payne, P. D., Burrack, F., Parkes, K. A., & Wesolowski, B. (2019). An emerging process of assessment in music education. Music Educators Journal, 105(3), 36–44. Powell, S.  R. (2021). Competition, ideology, and the one-dimensional music program. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 20(3), 19–43. Regelski, T. A. (2002). On “methodolatry” and music teaching as critical and reflective praxis. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102–123. Regelski, T.  A. (2004). Teaching music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. Oxford University Press. Regelski, T. A. (2016). Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, & Theory for Music Education, 15(2), 10–45. Regelski, T. A. (2018). Curriculum traditions, music education, and the praxial alternative. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(1), 1–45. Schippers, H. (2010). Facing the music: Shaping music education from a global perspective. Oxford University Press.

56

3  Understanding Systemic Ethnocentrism in Music Education

Snodgrass, J. S. (2016). Integration, diversity, and creativity: Reflections on the “manifesto” from the College Music Society. MTO: A Journal of the Society for Music Theory, 22(1). https:// mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.1/mto.16.22.1.snodgrass.html Torres-Ramos, J.  R. (2015). Harmonizing ethnomusicology and music education. SEM Student News, 11, 20–22. Tuinstra, B. (2019). Embracing identity: An examination of non-Western music education practices in British Columbia. International Journal of Music Education, 37(2), 286–297. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0255761419827359 Wang, J., & Humphreys, J. T. (2009). Multicultural and popular music content in an American music teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 19–36.

Part II

Practical Applications

Chapter 4

Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

Abstract  In this chapter, I focus on practical applications of the DMIS at the systemic level. First, I identify several core issues in music education that serve as barriers to progress at each ethnocentric stage (Denial, Defense, and Minimization). Next, I share ideas about small, developmental action steps that can be taken to overcome these issues. As barriers to progress at the systemic level begin to dissolve, individual music educators will find it easier to fully embrace their role as reflective and transformative practitioners who are responsive to the needs of students in classrooms, and society in general. Keywords  Intercultural sensitivity · Curriculum · Music education · Diversity · Collaboration · Competition · Assessment

4.1 Introduction In 2009 I gave a presentation on collegiate curricular change in music for the Society for Music Teacher Education in Greensboro, North Carolina. One of the first slides in my presentation was an outline of Michigan State University’s degree requirements for the Bachelor of Music in Music Education. The outline included certain numbers of semesters for applied lessons, large ensembles, theory and ear training, and history and literature, as well as music education requirements including three tracks (instrumental, string, choral/ general), introduction to music education, conducting, instrument and voice classes dependent on track, methods classes dependent on track, college of education courses, and student teaching. I asked the audience members how many of them taught in a college program similar to that. Nearly every hand went up. Then I revealed that the program I described was taken from the Michigan State University Academic Programs book from 1959. The course descriptions, the performance repertoire, even the delivery of instruction were, for all practical purposes, nearly unchanged in 50 years (Kratus, 2014, p. 342).

This reflection by music education scholar John Kratus, which indicates there was virtually no change in music education degree requirements at a major university between 1959 and 2009, is alarming. In 1959, many public schools in the United States were still segregated by race. In 2009, we had an African American president. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_4

59

60

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

In 1959, 89% of the U.S. population identified as white. By 2009, that number had dropped by 17%. In 1959, only 36% of females who graduated from high school enrolled in college. By 2009, that number had more than doubled and females outnumbered males in this area. In 1959, music consumers either listened to music on the radio or purchased LP records that contained songs from their favorite recording artists. In 2009, music consumers could access their favorite songs, on demand and for free by using the Internet. In 1959, Miles Davis released his seminal album Kind of Blue, The Sound of Music debuted on Broadway, and people across the country mourned the loss of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper in a plane crash on “the day the music died.” In 2009, Lady Gaga’s self-proclaimed “soulless electronic pop” songs topped the Billboard Hot 100 charts, and thousands of aspiring musicians from across the country stood in line for hours (sometimes all day) to audition for the popular reality TV show, American Idol. Despite these major demographic, societal, and musical changes, however, university music education curricula remained almost completely intact during this 50-year period. This example is meant to illustrate what happens when systems/organizations do not resolve issues related to the ethnocentric stages of the DMIS: They remain stuck in a perpetual cycle of indoctrination that “uses knowledge of the past as its end … rather than as a means for understanding the present” (Allsup, 2016, p.  19). As Kratus warned, “institutions that do not change to accommodate their changing contexts ultimately cease to exist” (2014, p. 343).

4.1.1 How Do We Move Forward? As you begin reading the second half of this book (practical applications), you may be feeling a bit overwhelmed and perhaps even a little deflated. Objectively, the thought of overcoming the deeply engrained curricular tendencies discussed in Chap. 3 is daunting, especially considering those who are actively working to change/de-center these practices are in the minority (Kratus, 2014). You may be asking yourself questions such as: Is it even possible to change a systemic structure that has remained largely intact for over fifty years (or more)? Where do we start? Can my individual actions really make a difference? Have I personally benefited from some of the structures that are currently in place? If so, do I really want to change a system that has in many ways benefited me personally? These questions are difficult, and at this point, I do not offer any concrete answers. For me personally, however, the answer to the last question I posed is: Yes. I must. As long as there are students in my classroom (and in the system at large) who do not have equal opportunities to experience musical fulfillment and success (Regelski, 2004), I have an ethical responsibility to advocate for change. In this chapter, I focus on practical applications of the DMIS at the systemic level. First, I identify several core issues that serve as barriers to progress at each ethnocentric stage (Denial, Defense, Minimization). Next, I share ideas about small, developmental action steps we can take to overcome these issues. Over time, “SAS

4.2  Overcoming Systemic Denial in Music Education

61

(small act of subversion) after SAS undermines the status quo” (Kratus, 2014, p. 346) and helps us make progress towards a worthwhile long-term goal: Creating a more flexible, inclusive, and equitable system in music education; A system within which more students will be able to discover the ways in which music can greatly contribute to “a life well-lived” (Regelski, 2018, p. 35).

4.2 Overcoming Systemic Denial in Music Education 4.2.1 Tradition as a Barrier to Progress Music education is a field that is steeped in proud traditions that have stood the test of time (Allsup, 2016). “Tradition,” in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing– especially when it is viewed as the starting point (not the end) of the educational journey. However, the vignette I used to open this chapter clearly demonstrates how clinging too tightly to traditions in  the face of major societal changes, changing musical landscapes, and the changing needs of students (college music education majors AND the K–12 students they will someday serve) is problematic. Relating this idea to Bennett’s DMIS theory, too often (especially in a field like music education, which is steeped in tradition), the idea of preserving “traditions” becomes a convenient (albeit often subconscious) excuse for maintaining the position of systemic “Denial”. People within a Denial-oriented music education system usually share similar backgrounds, educational experiences, and values, and therefore, accept their perspective of music and music learning as the “normal” perspective. Because this illusion of normality is so deeply engrained and widely accepted, those in positions of power (e.g., department heads, ensemble directors, applied instrument teachers, administrators) can easily use it to isolate or separate (or from their point of view, maybe even protect) their department/students/program/university from alternative/diverse perspectives regarding what it means to teach and learn music. Allsup (2016) referred to this phenomenon as a “closed” system—a system that prioritizes “historically coded practices” (p. vii) upheld by certain “doorkeepers” and is “hostile to innovation and popular input” (p. 39).

4.2.2 Acknowledging Diversity According to Bennett (2017), systemic Denial tends to resolve itself when “people who prefer stability (sameness) are forced by some circumstance to become aware of others” (p. 3). Essentially, an organization moves beyond the Denial stage when the people who comprise the core of an organization have no choice but to acknowledge diversity. A precipitating factor (e.g., mandate from the outside, diversity

62

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

policy or directive, training initiative, incentive, lawsuit, etc.) requires the system to “break” tradition in some way. Action Step 1: Implement and Enforce Diversity Requirements At this point, it is important to acknowledge that many educational systems have made important systemic progress through the Denial stage in recent years, due in large part to the addition of due to the addition of “diversity” policies/requirements/ procedures/required trainings, etc. As an example, in 2016, many (not all) four-year universities in the United States had implemented or were in the process of implementing a general education requirement related to diversity. Many college students (both within and outside of music departments) choose to fulfill this requirement by taking a course in “World Music” (or something of a similar nature). This type of course generally provides an introduction to/sampling of music from a variety of cultures around the world. Music education scholars have pointed out that this “survey” approach to musical/cultural diversity is problematic for several reasons and is not likely to promote high levels of cultural understanding (a topic that I will discuss later in this chapter). However, it does represent acknowledgement of cultural/musical difference by the “system” (in this case, the university). Action Step 2: Include More Diverse Course Options in the Curriculum At least on paper, there seem to be more opportunities for students to encounter culturally diverse music traditions within formal music education systems than ever before. Many university music departments now offer opportunities for students to participate in a variety of non-Western Art Music (W.A.M.) influenced ensembles (e.g., jazz bands, steel pan and gamelan groups, etc.) and offer courses in related areas like ethnomusicology, world music, music business,  and music technology (Campbell et al., 2014). In some university settings around the world (e.g., Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden), popular music education has become an integral part of music teacher preparation programs (Allsup, 2016; Carson & Westvall, 2016), which has resulted in more practicing music educators who have “expertise in multiple styles and genres” (Allsup, 2016, p. 45). Curricular diversification has also been observed within K-12 music education settings. Especially within the past decade, secondary-level courses in music technology and non-traditional ensembles (e.g., mariachi bands, guitar, modern band, and/or steel pan/percussion ensembles, etc.) have become increasingly more common. At the elementary level, some schools offer opportunities for students to participate in world drumming, modern band, and ukulele clubs (just to name a few). Yes, diverse musical experiences often exist on the “margins” of the curriculum (Campbell et al., 2014; Hess, 2018) and therefore can be interpreted as superficial and somewhat tokenistic gestures of tolerance that lack the type of contextualization required for high levels of understanding (Bradley, 2017; Hess, 2013). At the university level, courses that focus on musical/cultural diversity and non-traditional ensembles are often taught/directed by adjunct faculty members or guest instructors who are paid very little and have no job security (Hess, 2015b). These are important issues, and I will tackle them later in this chapter. For now, however, I would like to acknowledge and celebrate these efforts for what they are: attempts to “notice”

4.2  Overcoming Systemic Denial in Music Education

63

musical/cultural difference through curricular offerings and thus, evidence of systemic progress through the Denial stage. Action Step 3: Increase Awareness of Resources and Training Opportunities Especially at the K–12 level, issues related to systemic Denial can be confronted and addressed, at least in some part, through targeted professional development experiences and marketing campaigns that increase educators’ general awareness of the growing body of culturally diverse music education resources that are currently available. Many practicing music educators attend professional conferences each year and some of the most popular offerings at these conferences are the “reading sessions” (sessions designed to help teachers learn about new choral and instrumental literature). A reading session dedicated to new culturally diverse selections (or diverse composers) could be a powerful way to heighten teachers’ awareness of arrangements that incorporate perspectives and traditions that are currently underrepresented in today’s traditional performance ensemble settings. Blogs and other online music teacher forums can also be great tools to disseminate information about new tools, resources, literature, and programs as they are released. In addition to promoting high-quality, contextualized resources, we can promote training opportunities as they arise. As an example, summer professional development courses in World Music Pedagogy are now available at several universities throughout the United States (Campbell, 2018; Howard et al., 2014). Other organizations (e.g., Little Kids Rock/Music Will and Decolonizing the Classroom) provide resources and training through webinars and in-person events. Diversity, inclusion, and equity sessions are also becoming more common at professional conferences. Action Step 4: Encourage Diversity and Inclusion Through Wording in Curriculum Documents As I mentioned in Chap. 1, our current educational climate is dominated by discussions about “standardizing” curriculum. The “standards-based” curricular perspective is particularly prevalent in North America (United States and Canada), although many other countries have now followed suit (Kertz-Welzel, 2018). In many cases, practicing music educators are encouraged (if not required) to use outcomes-based curriculum documents that prioritize repertoire and practices drawn specifically from the Western classical tradition (Mellizo, 2020). The tendency to overemphasize one musical tradition while ignoring alternative conceptualizations of musicality within standards/outcomes-based curriculum documents is another clear example of systemic Denial in music education. We can resolve this issue by adjusting the wording within these documents to acknowledge the validity of diverse musical perspectives and multiple ways of being musical (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). The 2014 revision of the United States National Core Music Standards serves as an interesting case study of how one music education organization (The National Association for Music Education - NAfME) recognized that their original standards document (released in 1994) encouraged educators to focus narrowly on technical skills and notation from a Western classical perspective. They subsequently tried

64

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

to resolve issues related to Denial by making changes to this important curriculum document, which is utilized by thousands of music educators across the country. Originally conceived in 1994, the U.S. national music standards were an extension of the wider educational “standards” movement of the time and were intended to offer a more unified and comprehensive national vision of “what it mean[t] to be educated in music” (Kertz-Welzel, 2008, p. 115). The nine original national music “standards” were designed to provide specific information about what students should “know and be able to do” (Benedict, 2006, p. 18) after participating in school music classes. These standards were used as a guide by many states, school districts, and individual music educators to create more localized curriculum documents. Local documents were often broken down even further into specific, rigid, and mostly achievement-oriented goals at various grade levels. Whereas the 1994 standards emphasized technical skills and content knowledge from a distinctly Western classical perspective, the 2014 revised standards were more inclusive by design. As an example, one of the original 1994 achievement standards specified students should be able to: “Use standard notation to record their musical ideas and the musical ideas of others” (drawn from the 5th–8th grade document). In the 2014 version, this standard was much more specific and thus, inclusive: “Use standard and/or iconic notation and/or recording technology to document personal rhythmic, melodic, and two-chord harmonic musical ideas” (drawn from the 5th grade strand). Although the extent to which practicing teachers have actually changed their practices based on the increased inclusivity of these standards is unknown, these types of changes reflect a growing awareness/acknowledgement (by the American music education “system”) that diverse musical content and perspectives should be part of every student’s musical education (movement past the Denial stage). It is important to note, however, that the new U.S. national music standards still contain many statements that implicitly and explicitly place W.A.M. in a position of power over other traditions (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). This is an issue I will address in the next section.

4.3 Overcoming Systemic Defense in Music Education 4.3.1 “West is Best” as a Barrier to Progress Whereas the Denial stage is often characterized by subconscious tendencies that are unknowingly reproduced (often in the name of tradition), indicators of the Defense stage are demonstrated in more conscious and purposeful ways. Within defensive systems/organizations, “us” and “them” categorizations (Bennett, 2017) become more visible because one musical perspective is clearly privileged above all others through decisions made and sustained by those who hold positions of power. Applying this idea to music education systems specifically, within a defensive system, alternative perspectives of music, music making, and music education are

4.3  Overcoming Systemic Defense in Music Education

65

recognized and perceived more fully but viewed critically/suspiciously or “in highly stereotyped ways” (p. 4). Previous authors have described a prominent form of systemic defensiveness in music education as “the west is best perspective” (Campbell, 2004, p. xvi), which occurs when W.A.M. and its related practices/approaches/ ensemble structure are explicitly and unapologetically privileged over all other musical perspectives. I argue “west is best” the main barrier music education systems will need to overcome to move past systemic defensiveness. Within this section, I describe several action steps that might help us minimize this “west is best” position and cultivate non-threatening environments within which individuals can grow into wanting to participate in the process of meaningful and sustainable systemic change.

4.3.2 Stressing Commonalities When “defensiveness” is recognized, Bennett recommends interventions that focus on commonalities (“sameness”) instead of differences (e.g., shared values/vision, common humanity). Systemically, he contends “team-building exercises that stress mutual dependence and define differences as in-group variations of personality and style” can help to resolve issues related to the Defense stage (2017, p.  4). It is important to acknowledge once again that this suggestion might seem antithetical to goals such as equity and social justice. Sometimes it feels necessary to take an immediate ethical stand against hegemony and bigotry by “skipping ahead” in the continuum when indicators of systemic Defense are observed. However, Bennett (1993) warned that this type of action could actually strengthen the defensive worldview, leading to the “rejection of further development” (p. 39). Furthermore, he argued focusing too much on power differences (privilege and oppression) at this stage of development could even drive people back into Denial (2017). For this reason, aspiring changemakers should resist the temptation to do too much too soon when a system exhibits characteristics of Defense. Instead, they can focus on the ways in which small disruptions to the current system now can pave the way for bigger transformations later. Action Step #5: Encourage Connection and Collaboration from Within the Existing Program Structure In many university settings (also K–12 settings in some cases), there is one “music” department comprised of several different “silos” of study that operate (for the most part) in isolation from one another (Campbell et  al., 2014). Socially constructed hierarchical categories that exist within music departments are sometimes based on instrument (string, winds, piano, percussion, voice, ethnic, popular), sometimes genre (European classical, jazz, musical theatre, global/ethnic), and sometimes major (performance, theory/composition, musicology, education). Especially when characteristics of Defense are recognized, the immediate priority should not be to

66

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

dismantle these categories and related hierarchies/stereotypes altogether—according to Bennett’s work, efforts to do so will likely be ineffective at this point. Consider, for example, a scenario in which a university music department faculty member who possesses a high level of social and cultural capital (perhaps even a department head) resents and rejects all suggestions for curricular change because they deeply believe Western classical music is intrinsically more aesthetically pleasing, sophisticated, and thus “better” than other types of music. For this person, at this stage in their own developmental journey towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity, the notion of “diversifying” means lowering department standards and doing students a disservice. They might view large-scale suggestions for change as an attack on the European classical music tradition or even the “obliteration of what is currently in place” (Campbell et al., 2014, p. 31). Trying to convince this person, at this moment in time, that their perspective is “wrong” or “ethnocentric” or “hegemonic” will probably backfire, especially if they hold a position power and/or their reaction reflects the viewpoint of other powerful individuals within the system. According to Bennett’s work (1993, 2004), people within this type of system need more opportunities to connect and (re)discover their commonalities. Despite differences, we must remember that human and musical commonalities always can (and should) be found. This point might seem obvious, but at times, it can be surprisingly easy to forget. In our darkest moments (e.g., concerts looming, papers to grade, advising week commences, research to submit, deadlines to meet), it can be comforting to remember that there are other people around us who are facing similar challenges and working toward similar goals. Although suggestions like initiating more department-wide teambuilding activities, faculty retreats, and/or social gatherings (including adjunct and/or part-time employees) might seem cliché or trite, these types of activities really do have great potential to encourage members of a music department to forge meaningful connections on a human (vs. professional) level. These human connections will become vitally important when deeper discussions regarding musical/cultural relativity need to happen down the road (perhaps when the system has moved beyond the Minimization stage). Revisiting the common mission/vision statement of the music department on a regular basis (perhaps even at the beginning of every full department meeting) is another non-threatening way to stress commonalities and promote movement through the Defense stage. Most people who work within the confines of a university music department share a strong common desire to equip their students with the knowledge and skills they will need to achieve personal success in a twenty-first century musical world, “transmit their broad and transformative wisdom to society, and positively impact many of the most pressing issues of our times” (Campbell et al., 2014, p. 57). Reminding ourselves (and each other) of these collective, uniting goals can be an effective way to re-center/rally a large group of people with diverse perspectives. Cross-curricular collaborations also have important potential to stimulate movement through the Defense stage. Although music departments often structure performances/concerts with similar ensembles performing together (e.g., vocal jazz and jazz band; chamber groups; choral ensembles, etc.), it doesn’t have to be that

4.3  Overcoming Systemic Defense in Music Education

67

way. Diversifying the way in which these public performances are structured (e.g., chamber orchestra with steel drums; vocal jazz with flute choir; guitar ensemble with Balinese Gamelan, etc.), can provide student musicians with opportunities to overcome preconceived (sometimes stereotypical) notions of what people in different strands of the music department do. From a wider perspective, these collaborations can also provide audience members with a new type of musical listening experience—one they might not seek out on their own (audience members often plan to attend concerts that feature musical genres that they are familiar with and know they will like). Perhaps most importantly, these types of collaborations open the lines of communication and promote teamwork between faculty m ­ embers/ ensemble directors, who are placed in a position of mutual dependence in terms of success–a developmental task that Bennett himself recommended (2004). Action Step #6: Recognize and Reward Alternative Indicators of Success It is important to remember that systemic defensiveness is usually not motivated by malice. In many cases, defensive reactions to recommendations for systemic curricular change are motivated by fear (fear regarding job security, fear of losing status, fear of the unknown, etc.). As an example, a band teacher might be weary of adding new courses (e.g., a guitar ensemble or modern band) to the curriculum because they fear the new course offering will compromise the quality of and/or reduce the number of students who participate in their award-winning concert band. To help individuals within a music education system overcome these types of fears, “systems” can and should do more to recognize and reward alternative indicators of a music program’s success. Overwhelmingly, mission/vision statements of music programs around the world emphasize the need to reach more students through music––not receiving the highest score at music festivals, achieving a “superior” rating, or having the most students accepted into an honor ensemble–– yet these are the types of achievements we continue to highlight and applaud. For example, the U.S. National Association for Music Education’s (NAfME) proclaimed mission is “to advance music education by promoting the understanding and making of music by all” (www.nafme.org). If we are truly committed to this mission (ALL seems to be the goal), then NAfME (and related organizations) should be consistently recognizing and lauding schools that reach the highest percentage of students through their music programs––as much (or probably more) than schools that demonstrate “high levels of achievement” in a traditional sense (scores at festivals). It stands to reason that music teachers who know their efforts to reach more students will be recognized just as much as their scores at festivals/competitions will be much less “afraid” to support and/or pilot alternative programs and approaches that are student-centered and inclusive. Action Step #7: Restructure Competitive Frameworks and Re-evaluate Required Repertoire I argue the competitive atmosphere that is currently encouraged within performance-­ based music education paradigms (especially prevalent in North America) is the perfect breeding ground for feelings of defensiveness between and within groups. Many music directors are required (or heavily pressured) to participate in

68

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

competitive music festivals (i.e., district, state, regional, national) that require them to choose “acceptable” musical repertoire (sometimes from specific lists that contain “quality literature” at various skill levels). Then, their ensembles’ final performances are judged by humans (who possess their own set of assumptions and biases) who are required to apply subjective and often ethnocentric performance criteria and scoring categories in order to give ratings and choose “winners and losers” (Bates, 2013, p. 78). To combat systemic Defense in music education, we should work towards de-­ emphasizing/de-centering competition-based paradigms within K–12 school music programs. First, repertoire lists used in festival settings need to include more diverse options, both in terms of musical content and composers/arrangers—representation matters. Second, festivals should offer more “comments-based” options that emphasize improvement over numbers/ratings/winning/losing. As a practicing music educator who is trying to navigate this system myself, I notice that my middle-school band and choir students care very little about a judge’s suggestions for improvement when a rating/score is on the line. My own students tend to make derogatory comments about groups that score lower (e.g., “Their trumpet section was terrible”) and defensive comments when groups score higher (e.g., Yeah, but they were 8th graders and we’re only in 7th grade). A musically fulfilling performance in the moment suddenly becomes terrible if the score comes back low, and a performance that feels sub-par in the moment becomes amazing if the score comes back high. Within recent years, I have begun to commit a “small act of subversion” (Kratus, 2014) by selecting the “comments-only” (or “non-competitive”) option at festivals whenever it is offered. At first, this choice elicited some negative reactions from students and parents, who enjoyed the competitive format for one reason or another. However, these complaints subsided when I explained my choice as an effort to help my students understand their musical growth as an ongoing process, not a product. I wanted my students to have opportunities to participate in these types of festivals, but I did not want my students’ musical self-worth to be determined by one judge’s subjective opinion at a single point in time. After a while, I no longer had to explain myself. I sometimes wonder what would happen if a prominent, well-respected music festival decided to go entirely comments based. Perhaps, this (somewhat larger) “act of subversion” would create the type of ripple-effect that Kratus (2014) envisioned. Action Step #8: Eliminate Terms that “Other” from Curriculum Documents According to Bennett (1993, 2004), one of the most effective ways to resolve issues related to the Defense stage is to avoid “othering” and “us vs. them” scenarios. From a systemic perspective, we can apply this idea by reconsidering some of the ways that we use terminology in written curriculum documents. As a starting point, we should move away from binary labels such as “world” and “non-traditional,” which place music into two distinct categories: Western art music (W.A.M.) (or influenced by W.A.M.) and everything else (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). Binary labels fail to acknowledge musical nuances and complexities, and thus, encourage

4.3  Overcoming Systemic Defense in Music Education

69

superficial, tokenistic encounters with music from unfamiliar cultural settings (Hess, 2013, 2015a). In some cases, the terminology used in these documents moves beyond categories and more explicitly towards superiority (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022). For example, descriptors like “appropriate” and “quality” imply binary categories that are either right or wrong (appropriate vs. not appropriate and high quality vs. low quality). Action Step #9: Embed Musically/Culturally Diverse Perspectives Throughout Existing Curricular Structure Earlier in this chapter, I argued a diversity course requirement at the university level could effectively promote movement through the Denial stage. Although I stand by this statement, I do not think a “diversity” course requirement (sometimes fulfilled through a “world” music survey course) goes far enough to promote growth towards an ethnorelative worldview. These types of courses, which tend to lump all music outside of the Western classical perspective under the “world” label, promote “othering,” an “us/them” mentality, and further perpetuate existing unequal power relationships (Hess, 2015a). I therefore argue music teacher preparation programs that begin and end their attempts to diversify the curriculum by requiring one survey course in “World” Music (or another diversity-related course) still run the risk of graduating a large number of pre-service music educators with a defensive worldview. Yes, they are more “aware” of cultural/musical differences but may still operate under the assumption that “west is best.” The authors who comprised the TFUMM in the United States addressed this issue in 2014, stating, “the scattering of new offerings atop an unchanging foundation that was never designed to support engagement beyond the European tradition has not only placed additional stress on the conventional curricular foundations, but has reified the divide between music study and real-world musical practice” (p. 16). The task force subsequently recommended an alternative approach to the “diversity” course requirement at the university level. Instead of requiring all music majors to take a semester-long course related to diversity (e.g., a world music survey course), university music departments could infuse culturally diverse perspectives and musical styles into the curricula of core courses that music majors are already required to take to complete their degree program (e.g., aural and written theory, music history, composition). As an example, a required course in aural theory would integrate perspectives, practices, and materials from jazz, popular, global, and European classical traditions (Campbell et al., 2014). This embedded approach to musical diversity, if implemented sensitively and consistently, could be a very effective way to help college music majors (especially music education majors) overcome feelings of defensiveness towards alternative conceptualizations of music because it would help to diminish the “othering” that unavoidably happens when all music outside of the Western classical canon is lumped together under the “world” label (and marginalized within the foundational curricular structure). Instead, aspects of all music traditions would be presented on equal footing in logical, integrated, and inquiry-based ways. It seems logical to assume this more flexible curricular approach, designed to help music education majors experience diversity and

70

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

develop a wider musical skill set within their existing program of study, could cultivate a new generation of music teachers who are not threatened by alternative musical paradigms. This action step would also be beneficial from a program-­ structure/administrative perspective since it would eliminate one course from an already overcrowded program of study (Campbell et al., 2014). The main problem with this potential action step is its reliance on each individual course instructor’s personal level of intercultural sensitivity and/or level of “buy-in” to initiate this type of paradigm shift. According to Bennett (1993), a teacher should operate at least one developmental stage beyond the goal for students in the classroom. An instructor who is unable to integrate diverse perspectives into their content area with fidelity, due to their own unresolved defensiveness towards difference and/or curricular change, will probably struggle to implement this structural action step effectively. For this reason, university programs should consider piloting a small-scale version of this action step first (perhaps by asking an instructor with a known commitment to diversity to pilot this type of approach in a single class). The K–12 version of this idea might involve adopting a more integrated and inclusive approach to structuring/naming music classes (most importantly, performing ensemble classes). When I first started teaching middle school music in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States twenty years ago, my school’s system was set up in a very “mainstream” way. I was required to teach four music classes in four distinct areas: Concert Band, Jazz Band, Concert Choir, and Show Choir. Usually, students were only able to fit one (possibly two) of these classes into their busy schedules. Over time, I began to recognize gaps in student learning. For example, my concert band students who played instruments such as the oboe and French horn never had opportunities to improvise (which I considered a foundational musical skill), and my show choir students were only introduced to a very narrow body of musical repertoire. With the support of my building administrator, I began to restructure these classes––blurring the lines between musical genres and pedagogical perspectives. All students played/sang music drawn from a wide variety of cultural settings, all students learned to play/sing scales and proficiently read staff notation, and all students improvised (yes, even oboists, and yes even at festivals and competitions). Currently, I teach two middle school music classes that are simply called “Band” and two sections that are simply called “Choir”. What was once a “small act of subversion” (Kratus, 2014) on my part is now accepted by my school community as “normal”. Students enroll in these classes knowing they will play and sing a wide variety of music drawn from different music traditions and therefore learn through different pedagogical approaches. A couple of years ago, I also began to integrate elements of world music pedagogy into this “traditional” ensemble setting (Bartolome, 2019; Montemayor et al., 2018), which has added an additional layer of variety, complexity, and excitement to our daily music classes.

4.4  Overcoming Systemic Minimization in Music Education

71

4.4 Overcoming Systemic Minimization in Music Education 4.4.1 “Music is the Universal Language” as a Barrier to Progress According to Bennett (2017), the resolution of issues related to the Defense stage sometimes results in too much uniformity. People within a system/organization that has reached the Minimization stage tend to “assume that their own experiences are shared by others, or that certain basic values and beliefs transcend cultural boundaries and thus apply to everyone (whether they know it or not)” (p. 4). Relating this idea to music education specifically, efforts to diversify are still deeply influenced by the idea that music is a universal language, through which people from many different cultural backgrounds can accept and understand each other. A music program characterized by Minimization might “seem” diverse and/or inclusive on the surface: A variety of courses and ensembles are offered, teachers make conscious efforts to program diverse repertoire, resources are provided to those who need them (e.g., instrument rentals, scholarships, etc.), and collaboration between departments (e.g., band/choir/orchestra) and colleagues is common. Yet, microaggressions still exist, albeit a bit farther beneath the surface. Culturally diverse selections are often taught out of context and/or through a W.A.M. lens (e.g., emphasis on musical elements and learning through written staff notation), regardless of the culture of origin. At the university level, courses beyond the “mainstream” are not accessible to many music majors, who need to prioritize courses that are required for their program of study. Additionally, “diverse” courses are often taught by non-experts or part-time or adjunct employees (who are not paid appropriately for their work). It is important to remember that although problematic, attempts to diversify from within current music education systems (such as the examples I just described) are usually well-intended. It is natural for educators to reproduce the systems within which they were trained (usually Western European models of music education). Many music educators, at all levels of the system, lack clear categories for understanding musical difference due to a lack of training/exposure to culturally diverse music traditions (Carson & Westvall, 2016). They are doing their best to acknowledge cultural and musical diversity, despite this lack of experience and while fighting against “the natural tendency to privilege music they view as ‘theirs’” (Drummond, 2010, p. 119).

4.4.2 Debunking “Music is the Universal Language” The main problem with the “music is the universal language” perspective is that “music” is not a concept that is universally understood—it varies greatly from one culture to the next. Ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl (2015) asserted, “most languages

72

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

of the world don’t have a term to encompass music as a total phenomenon.” He continued, “when a society or culture does have a word roughly translatable as ‘music’, that word may include things we in Western urban society, despite our own loose definition, do not include as musical, and on the other hand it may specifically exclude other phenomena that we do regard as music” (p. 24). In this section, I propose several action steps that might help music education systems overcome issues related to the “music is the universal language perspective,” and bridge the gap between the ethnocentric stage of Minimization (unity because of similarity) and the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance (unity despite differences). Action Step #10: Clarify Language in Curricular Documents Previously, I suggested adding qualifying statements that acknowledge diversity to written curriculum documents could promote movement through the Denial stage (Action Step #4). I then argued removing binary labels from these documents could help resolve systemic Defenseness (Action Step #8). Moving past Minimization will require us to take this idea one step further by replacing or qualifying Eurocentric terminology within these written curriculum documents. Mellizo and Cabedo Mas (2022) have argued: Because certain terms and concepts have occupied a prominent place in curricular conversations for so long, it is easy to forget they are not universal (e.g., harmony, form, forte, piano, andante, allegro, staccato, legato, etc.). We can encourage music teachers to reconsider their use of terms that only relate to W.A.M. by replacing or clarifying them in written curriculum documents (p. 11).

The inclusion of terminology that relates only to Western classical music in written curriculum documents (a common practice) is an example of Minimization because it communicates a clear underlying message that is not explicitly stated: “Western classical musical values and priorities are objective and universal” (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022, p.  8). As other scholars have already noted, it is possible to replace these terms that with alternatives that are applicable in more music cultures. For example, Walden (2020) has argued the term “harmony” can be replaced with “texture” to ensure “that genres that do not include the Western concept of harmony are not excluded” (pp.  84–85). Wade (2012) proposed several additional neutral terms that apply across many cultural boundaries, such as “pitch”, “time”, “instrumentation”, and “structure”. Consider the following hypothetical example, which illustrates how this action step could be put into practice: • Curricular Goal: “Through active listening, students identify crusis/anacrusis, andante and allegro, major and minor, and rondo form, using appropriate musical terminology” • Revised Option 1 (Clarify): “Through active listening to music drawn from the Western classical tradition, students identify crusis/anacrusis, andante and allegro, major and minor, and rondo form, using appropriate musical terminology”

4.4  Overcoming Systemic Minimization in Music Education

73

• Revised Option 2 (Replace): “Through active listening and using terminology that is accepted in the music culture, students identify characteristics related to pitch, structure, and time”. As this example demonstrates, the object is “not to eliminate W.A.M. and related terminology/pedagogy from the curriculum” (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022, p. 11). “As one of the world’s great musical traditions, Western classical music exemplifies a host of powerful ideas and values worth preserving and loving” (Jorgensen, 2020, p. 135). Rather, this change recommendation is meant to encourage music teachers to “explore Western music as simply one music among many and its use of notation and Western constructs … as one way of learning music” (Hess, 2015a, p. 344). It would be naive to assert changes to written documents, in and of themselves, can solve issues of ethnocentrism in music education. After all, written “curriculum” is but one dimension of the “curriculum” at large. Ultimately, it will be up to teachers to put these types of changes into practice. However, as Mellizo and Cabedo Mas (2022) state: The content, goals/objectives, materials/resources, activities/teaching strategies, and evaluation procedures outlined in these documents are used frequently by individual teachers as they plan and implement their own instructional curriculum. In this way, written curriculum lays an important foundation for what is taught and ultimately learned by students in educational settings (p. 3).

By clarifying language in written documents that teachers are encouraged or required to use, music education systems can lead teachers towards more complex understandings of musical differences and away from tokenistic and hegemonic attempts to diversify the curriculum. Action Step #11: Honor Multiple Conceptualizations of Music Through Changes in Assessment Practices Building from the previous section, the rise of “standardized” curriculum and related assessment in music education has, in many ways, deepened systemic issues related to Minimization. Although “assessment is a necessary component of educational systems for a variety of reasons” (Mellizo, 2020, p. 58), assessments in the music education world frequently impose Eurocentric conceptualizations of music, evidenced by a strong emphasis on learning to read and write music using written staff notation, and identifying Western music concepts (like dynamics, articulation, and harmonic structure). As I discussed in Chap. 3, ethnocentric assessment practices based on these “stringent and restrictive notions of what constitutes musical competence, together with narrow definitions of legitimate musical knowledge” (Koza, 2009, p. 85) are often not appropriate, and put certain types of musical learners at a distinct disadvantage. From a higher education perspective, Koza (2009) lamented the ways in which ethnocentric assessment practices “shut out potential teachers from already underrepresented culture groups” (p. 85). She explained that audition committees want “to hear ‘quality,’ which is defined conventionally in terms of repertoire” (p. 89). They also want to hear and see  “specific visions of tone quality, diction, body

74

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

comportment, and even attire” (among other rigid performance criteria). Koza argued these practices could be understood as a form of racism, referring to it as “listening for whiteness” (p.  85). The piano proficiency exam, which is still required in many university teacher preparation programs before college students are allowed to student teach, is another example of an assessment that minimizes cultural difference. This requirement sends a clear message that piano skills are universal and imperative for success in all areas of music education––which is simply not the case. After college students graduate from university music teacher education programs, the trajectory of their careers continues to be influenced by ethnocentric assessment practices that minimize cultural and musical difference. For example, Elpus (2015) found that music teacher licensure candidates in the United States represented a highly select, and overwhelmingly homogeneous subset of the population (approximately 86% White). Additionally, Elpus found that teacher candidates from certain demographic groups (e.g., White and male) were significantly more likely to score higher on licensure tests than candidates from other demographic groups (e.g., Black and female). From a K–12 perspective, the quality of school musical performances is almost always evaluated based on Western classical performance norms, regardless of the music culture of origin (e.g., intonation, tone quality, blend, balance, vocal timbre, phrasing). This practice minimizes differences that exist between music cultures because it assumes “that criteria for musical achievement/proficiency remain the same across all music traditions” (Mellizo, 2020, p. 58). Resolving these types of issues will require concrete actions that acknowledge, in a more widespread way, that desired musical outcomes/results are not static or standardized. “They are highly dependent on musical values in the culture from which the music is derived– and sometimes, these values change over time” (p. 61). As a field, we need to find ways to implement more culturally informed and equitable approaches to progress at all levels of the system. Assessment as “Rubrics”  Some of the specific suggestions I provided in the last section for revising or clarifying Eurocentric language in curriculum documents (Action Step #10) should also be applied to assessment rubrics. Specifically, we should replace or clarify the Eurocentric terminology and performance norms that are currently used to assess student learning and achievement, regardless of the cultural setting (e.g., analyzing all music based on music elements like form, harmony, dynamics, and tempo; reading and performing/reading all music through written staff notation; subjective indicators of quality like intonation, vocal technique, and tone quality). We should also incorporate criteria that is accepted within individual music cultures to evaluate performances (Mellizo, 2020). This action step will require collaborative work with cultural practitioners and ethnomusicologists to develop a deeper understanding of what constitutes “high quality” in a variety of diverse music traditions. Armed with more culture-specific information, practicing music educators and curriculum specialists will be ready to develop

4.4  Overcoming Systemic Minimization in Music Education

75

rubrics and other assessment tools that are more culturally sensitive, and thus provide a better assessment of a student’s musical growth/learning. Assessment as “Degree Requirements”  Returning to my discussion of the piano proficiency exam, efforts to eliminate this “rite of passage” altogether (and others like it) when a system exhibits characteristics of Minimization stage will likely be unsuccessful. In fact, Bennett (2011) warned such a step might cause people within the organization “to retreat to the earlier ethnocentric stage of Defense” (p. 4)— especially since it is arguable that skills on a chordal accompaniment instrument should be a part of a music teacher’s skill set. Instead, we could reconceptualize this requirement (and others like it) in ways that honor the “music backgrounds, skills, preferences and experiences” of each individual pre-service music teacher (Abril, 2013, p. 8), perhaps by providing them with an option to demonstrate proficiency on a different instrument, like the guitar or ukulele, instead. Assessment as “Hiring Practices”  Many education systems in general and music education systems specifically have developed detailed diversity and racial equity action plans (displayed proudly on institutional websites). Yet, many of these efforts to diversify personnel have thus far failed (Elpus, 2016; Ewell, 2021; DeAngelis, 2022). I argue one of many reasons why racial (and other) disparities continue to persist in music education is our failure to recognize “musical” diversity as a part of the “diversity” spectrum. When it comes to hiring decisions (which function as a form of assessment), musical “sameness” continues to be privileged over musical “difference”. Cutietta (2017) went so far as to assert hiring policies at the university level are often “a perfect storm of inbreeding” … “preferring to hire faculty from established and well-respected college programs, and conversely colleges and universities judging their graduate programs, in large part, on which institutions hire their graduates” (p. 257). “Diversity” is accepted and even celebrated (racial, ethnic, gender, etc.), but only when the candidate’s musical training and experience falls “within the accepted structure” (p. 257). In other words, “diverse” candidates are not discriminated against … if they meet certain criteria (graduating from the right school, studying with the right teacher, specializing in the right area, possessing the right skills, etc.). Moving forward, music education systems (especially at the university level) will need to revisit and revise certain policies and most importantly, the criteria/assessment rubrics used to make hiring decisions to ensure musical diversity (which I argue should be viewed as a unique strength) counts “for” and not “against” candidates. Furthermore, the people who comprise these hiring committees will need to be ready to engage in a continuous struggle against their own implicit biases, asking themselves questions like: What type of musical training and previous experience is privileged through this scoring rubric? Is this person’s musical perspective already represented in our department? What unique perspective/ strengths does this candidate bring to the table? Will this person’s ideas about teaching and learning music challenge my own (a good thing)? Bennett (2017) referred

76

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

to this idea as contextual relativism and urged decision makers to consider “goodness in context” (p. 5) throughout the decision-making process. Assessment as “Admission”  Re-imagining and revising college entrance assessment tools (which determine admission and scholarships) in ways acknowledge and reward multiple ways of making and learning music can serve a similar purpose (Koza, 2009). Beyond social justice rationales (which are very important), admitting (and financially supporting) students who possess diverse musical perspectives and strengths into university music education programs is perhaps the best way to ensure diverse musical and pedagogical perspectives make their way into K-12 music programs in the future. Action Step #12: Make Diverse Course Offerings More Accessible As previous scholars have noted, courses with content that does not align with the mainstream approach to music education are often relegated to the margins of the curriculum (Campbell et al., 2014; Hess, 2018). This is another indicator of systemic Minimization in music education. Diverse classes serve as nice “tokens” of diversity (“add-ons”), but do not disrupt the status quo in meaningful ways, which Bradley (2017) argued might “actually function to limit possibilities for diversity” (p. 209). In most cases, the “core” (required) curriculum remains mostly intact (Campbell et al., 2014). As I mentioned previously, many students cannot take advantage of new course offerings because they do not have room in their schedules. Additionally, long-standing (and hierarchical) program structure requirements limit the types of music courses certain students are allowed to take. As an example, students who are interested in “jazz” band or choir in secondary ensembles in the United States are often required to take “concert” band or choir first (or simultaneously). This requirement assumes the skills necessary to be successful in “concert” ensembles are needed to be successful in “jazz” ensembles (which is not the case). To further illustrate, small performing ensembles (e.g., acapella groups, jazz combos) often draw membership from a larger ensemble or exist as extra-­curricular activities. These arbitrary requirements might help to build and sustain “mainstream” music programs, but they also function as barriers many students must overcome to access a musical education that is personally meaningful within the school walls. To overcome these issues, individuals within systems that have reached the stage of systemic Minimization (opportunities to experience culturally diverse music traditions exist) can work towards making diverse course offerings accessible to more students. From a higher education perspective, even small adjustments to large group performance ensemble requirements for music education majors could make a big difference (Wang & Humphreys, 2009). One idea is to allow music education majors opportunities to fulfill some of their ensemble requirements through participation in “non-traditional” or small group ensembles (e.g., steel pans, guitars, mariachi, gamelan, panpipes, jazz combo, modern band, acapella choir, technology-based ensemble, etc.) (Palmer, 1994). These types of changes at the university level would eventually resonate throughout the entire system (Carson & Westvall, 2016) because graduates would enter K–12 classrooms with a broader variety of musical

4.5  Beyond Minimization: Achieving Ethnorelativism in Music Education

77

experiences and skills. K–12 systems should also reconsider prerequisites that prohibit students from participating in music classes that match their personal interests (e.g., “concert” music before “jazz”).

4.5 Beyond Minimization: Achieving Ethnorelativism in Music Education According to Bennett’s work (2017), the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism begins to diminish when “unity and diversity, are put into dialectical form: assuming similarity allows us to appreciate differences, and unity provides focus for diversity” (p.  4). Leaders within organizations that have reached Acceptance are “conscious of themselves and others in cultural contexts that are equal in complexity but different in form”. Bennett clarifies, “The acceptance of cultural difference does not mean agreement – cultural difference may be judged negatively – but the judgment is not ethnocentric in the sense that it is not automatically based on deviation from one’s own cultural position” (p. 4). Regarding music education systems, those that  have made the jump from Minimization to Acceptance are often comprised of individuals who have thought about and might even be in the process of developing policies related to many of the issues brought forth in this chapter (e.g., the accepted hierarchy of musical content in the curriculum, inequitable assessment, admission and hiring practices, the continued dominance of performance/competition-based paradigms). However, the infrastructure and related procedures for implementing curricular changes and enforcing policies have not yet been clearly defined. Essentially, the culturally sensitive practices described in this chapter are not yet a part of the organization’s “culture.” As Schmidt and Caldwell (2017) pointed out, policy changes require active participation from people within a system/organization. I argue the Acceptance stage becomes a time when the individuals who comprise the organization can take more concrete action (taking risks). In Chap. 3, I expressed agreement with many of the change recommendations brought forth in the Task Force for the Undergraduate Music Major’s “manifesto” document but argued they might have been “too much, too soon.” I believe many of the changes recommended in this report become much more feasible when a music education system begins to exhibit characteristics of Acceptance. For example, the task force described an “option-rich” curricular strategy that involves “reducing the number of core requirements and allowing students greater latitude in the space that is thereby opened up” (p. 31). Another recommendation from the task force would allow individual departments (e.g., music education vs. music performance) to determine the “core” curriculum for their area. This change recommendation would be a logical extension of Action Step #12 (making diverse courses more accessible). The task force also recommended several changes that have the potential to be transformative in terms of helping future music

78

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

educators develop the comprehensive skillsets needed to “better meet the needs of students in the modern world” (Drummond, 2010, p. 117), which involve placing a higher level of emphasis on musical skills related to creative processes such as improvisation and composition in addition to skills that are already heavily emphasized in university music education systems, such as literacy, performance, and analysis (Campbell et al., 2014). At the Acceptance stage, leaders and stakeholders should examine exemplars and consider the possibilities of educational transfer, which Kertz-Welzel (2018) defined as borrowing/copying successful strategies or policies from another system. Among many examples of innovative practices, Bradley (2017) discussed new diversity course requirements at the University of Toronto, curriculum overhauls at the University of Wisconsin, and the bridging of “music education” and “ethnomusicology” at the University of Washington (among other exemplars). Allsup (2016) described music education programs in Australia, Finland, and Scandinavia that have broken from the “monocultural tradition of teaching and teacher preparation, and consciously designed popular curricula that today produce many high-quality music teachers with expertise in multiple styles and genres” (p. 45). Moving from Acceptance into the stages Bennett (2017) called Adaptation and Integration will require members of music education communities to engage in a continuous cycle of action and reflection (Freire, 1970/1996), understanding that this work is never “done.” From within organizations, there will always be a need to evaluate the current realities of students, musicians, and music educators, and adjust curriculum to meet various needs as they arise (Campbell et al., 2014). At this stage, system-wide training initiatives in areas like culturally responsive pedagogy (Lind & McCoy, 2016) will become more impactful (this is discussed more in Chap. 5). Individuals within ethnorelative systems will also have more success challenging certain inequitable practices—for example, the tendency to hire individuals to teach courses that deviate from the accepted “core” curriculum on an adjunct or part time basis. This practice minimizes the contributions of well-qualified professionals who bring diverse musical understandings and a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. This practice is also an example of institutional injustice—since these individuals are denied many of the benefits provided to full-time employees, such as job security, higher pay, and healthcare (Hess, 2015b).

4.6 Conclusion Although music education is inherently multicultural (Elliott, 1995), from a systemic perspective, it is still structured and carried out in surprisingly ethnocentric ways. Many music education programs and polices remain grounded by the ethnocentric core belief “that music of the European canon is superior, and thus the most … appropriate for educational purposes” (Bradley, 2007, p. 149). Because this belief is so deeply engrained in many music education systems around the world,

4.6 Conclusion

79

musical content continues to be chosen and transmitted primarily from one dominant perspective, and student learning/growth continues to be measured based on subjective and ethnocentric indicators of quality. Beginning at the secondary level (middle and high school), music course offerings in some locations are limited to performance-oriented ensembles (such as band, choir, and orchestra), and thus, fail to reach a large percentage of the school population (Elpus, 2014). The accepted program “structure” in many secondary music programs, which emphasizes large group ensemble participation and a spirit of competition, is also prevalent in university music departments, where future music educators’ curricular experiences are designed to help them operate within the dominant model instead of challenging/ resisting it. Policies are hard to change, and enforcement is compartmentalized and inconsistent. Curricula ends up getting changed on a “surface” level only. And thus, the cycle repeats. Thinking about the types of changes that will be necessary to move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism in music education from a systemic perspective is overwhelming, to say the least. Performance and competition-based paradigms (which are deeply engrained) will need to be challenged. Musical content, pedagogical norms, and assessment practices will need to be diversified and expanded. Diverse course options will need to be available and accessible to students, and certain admission and hiring practices will need to be reimagined. Rather than thinking about these types of changes as a complete overhaul of music education systems, we can use Bennett’s DMIS framework to conceptualize transformation as a series of small, developmental steps that over time can move a system from where it currently “is” to where we would like it to be. The specific action steps I proposed throughout this chapter are synthesized in Fig. 4.1. As barriers to progress at the systemic level begin to dissolve (related to Denial, Defense, and Minimization), individual educators will find it easier to fully embrace their role as reflective and transformative practitioners who are responsive to the needs of students in classrooms, and society in general.

ACTION STEPS

DMIS STAGES

DENIAL BARRIER: TRADITION

DEFENSE BARRIER: “WEST IS BEST”

CONTENT

PEDAGOGY

Action Step 3: Increase awareness of diverse curricular resources

Action Step 1: Implement and enforce diversity requirements

Action Step 3: Increase awareness of professional development opportunities

Action Step 4: Encourage the inclusion of culturally diverse content through wording in curricular documents

Action Step 2: Add more diverse course options to the curriculum

Action Step 4: Encourage alternative pedagogical and transmission approaches through wording in curricular documents

Action Step 7: Re-evaluate required repertoire mandates/lists

Action Step 5: Encourage collaboration and teamwork from within the existing program structure

Action Step 8: Eliminate binary labels that “other” from curriculum documents

Action Step 9: Embed culturally diverse content throughout the curriculum

MINIMIZATION BARRIER: “MUSIC IS UNIVERSAL”

PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Action Step 12: Make diverse course offerings more accessible

Action Step 9: Embed musically/culturally diverse perspectives throughout the curriculum

Action Step 12: Make diverse course offerings more accessible

ASSESSMENT

Action Step 6: Recognize and reward alternative indicators of a music program’s “success”

Action Step 9: Embed musically/culturally diverse pedagogical approaches throughout the curriculum

Action Step 7: Restructure competitive frameworks

Action Step 10: Clarify and/or replace Eurocentric language in curricular documents

Action Step 11: Honor multiple conceptualizations of music through reimagined assessment practices

Fig. 4.1  Making music education systems interculturally sensitive: a matrix

80

4  Making Music Education Interculturally Sensitive: A Developmental Approach

References Abril, C. R. (2013). Toward a more culturally responsive general music classroom. General Music Today, 27(1), 6–11. Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Indiana University Press. Bartolome, S. J. (2019). World music pedagogy, vol. v: Choral music education. Routledge. Bates, V.  C. (2013). Music education unplugged. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 12(2), 75–90. Benedict, C. (2006). Chasing legitimacy: The US national music standards viewed through a critical theorist framework. Music Education Research, 8(1), 3–16. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M. J. (2011). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. IDRInstitute. Retrieved from: http://www.idrinstitute.org Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y.  Kim (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of intercultural development. Wiley. Bradley, D. (2007). The sounds of silence: Talking race in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory in Music Education, 6(4), 132–162. Bradley, D. (2017). Standing in the shadows of Mozart: Music education, world music, and curricular change. In R. D. Moore (Ed.), College music curricula for a new century (pp. 205–222). Oxford University Press. Campbell, P.  S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, experiencing culture. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Campbell, P. S., Myers, D., & Sarath, E. (2014). Transforming music study from its foundations: A manifesto for progressive change in the undergraduate preparation of music majors. College Music Society. Carson, C., & Westvall, M. (2016). Intercultural approaches and ‘diversified normality’ in music teacher education: Reflections from two angles. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 15(3), 37–52. Cutietta, R. A. (2017). K–16 music education in a democratic society. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 253–265). Oxford University Press. DeAngelis, D. R. (2022). Recent college graduates with bachelor’s degrees in music education: A demographic profile. Journal of Music Teacher Education, Online First, 32, 25. Drummond, J. (2010). Re-thinking western art music: A perspective shift for music educators. International Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 117–126. Elliott, D. J. (1995). Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues. Oxford University Press. Elpus, K. (2014). Evaluating the effect of no child left behind on U.S. music course enrollments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(3), 215–233. Elpus, K. (2015). Music teacher licensure candidates in the United States: A demographic profile and analysis of licensure examination scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(3), 314–335. Elpus, K. (2016). Understanding America’s human capital investment in arts education: Arts educators in the nation’s public schools (Research: Arts works working paper). National Endowment for the Arts. Ewell, P. (2021). Music theory’s white racial frame. Music Theory Spectrum, 43(2), 324–329. Freire, P. (1970/1996). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books.

References

81

Hess, J. (2013). Performing tolerance and curriculum: The politics of self-congratulation, identity formation, and pedagogy in world music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(1), 66–91. Hess, J. (2015a). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. Hess, J. (2015b). Upping the ‘anti-’: The value of an anti-racist theoretical framework in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 62–92. Hess, J. (2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. Howard, K., Swanson, M., & Campbell, P. S. (2014). The diversification of music teacher education: Six vignettes from a movement in progress. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 26–37. Jorgensen, E. R. (2020). To love or not to love (western classical music): That is the question (for music educators). Philosophy of Music Education Review, 28(2), 128–144. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2008). Music education in the twenty-first century: A cross-cultural comparison of German and American music education towards a new concept of international dialogue. Music Education Research, 10(4), 439–449. Kertz-Welzel, A. (2018). Globalizing music education: A framework. Indiana University Press. Koza, J. E. (2009). Listening for whiteness: Hearing racial politics in undergraduate school music. In T.  A. Regelski & J.  T. Gates (Eds.), Music education for changing times (pp.  83–95). Springer. Kratus, J. (2014). The role of subversion in changing music education. In C. Randles (Ed.), Music education: Navigating the future (pp. 340–346). Routledge. Lind, V.  L., & McCoy, C.  L. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge. Mellizo, J.  M. (2020). Music education, curriculum design, and assessment: Imagining a more equitable approach. Music Educators Journal, 106(4), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432120917188 Mellizo, J., & Cabedo Mas, A. (2022). Global mindset and music education: A comparison of curriculum documents in the United States and Spain. Arts Education and Policy Review. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2022.2070887 Montemayor, M., Coppola, W. J., & Mena, C. (2018). World music pedagogy, vol. iv: Instrumental music education. Routledge. Nettl, B. (2015). The study of ethnomusicology: Thirty-three discussions (3rd ed.). University of Illinois Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/j.ctt1hj9xkf Palmer, A. (1994). On cross-cultural music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 4(1), 19–24. Regelski, T.  A. (2004). Teaching music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. Oxford University Press. Regelski, T. A. (2018). Curriculum traditions, music education, and the praxial alternative. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(1), 1–45. Schmidt, P., & Caldwell, R. (2017). Introduction. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 1–8). Oxford University Press. Wade, B. C. (2012). Thinking musically (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Walden, J. (2020). A pile of drums: Putting theory into practice in culturally diverse music education. International Journal of Music Education, 38(1), 79–92. https://doi. org/10.1177/0255761419871358 Wang, J., & Humphreys, J. T. (2009). Multicultural and popular music content in an American music teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 19–36.

Chapter 5

Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Abstract Overcoming deeply engrained issues related to Denial, Defense, and Minimization in music education will require many of the widespread systemic changes discussed in Chap. 4. However, it will also require music teachers who are able and willing to implement these changes in practice. Within this chapter, I examine the ways in which Bennett’s DMIS model can serve as a tool to help to individual music educators recognize and overcome ethnocentric tendencies (in themselves and others), on their individual journeys towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. By considering common indicators of Denial, Defense, Minimization, Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration, as well as strategies for growth, we can better understand the reasons why certain ethnocentric norms are reproduced in music classrooms and work to change them … one music educator at a time. Keywords  Music education · Cultural bias · Cultural self-awareness · Humility · Culturally responsive teaching · World music pedagogy

5.1 Introduction Although the systemic changes suggested and discussed in Chap. 4 are incredibly important in terms of overcoming some of the deeply engrained ethnocentric tendencies that currently exist in the field of music education, the potential role of individual music educators during this change process should not be overlooked or underestimated. “The teacher is one of the primary agents in the educational process” (Lind & McCoy, 2016, p. 34), and progress towards a more culturally sensitive global music education system will not occur without individual music educators who are ready and willing to lead the charge. This is a point that has already been emphasized by several authors in our field. As an example, Palmer (1994) stated, “Without a sensitive musician and culturally empathic guide to direct the educational process, the most valuable materials can achieve minimal results” (p. 19). In a similar way, Campbell (2018) argued, “Even with the availability of materials and techniques that are aimed at providing avenues for the recognition and © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_5

83

84

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

enjoyment of a new or unfamiliar musical culture, the essential piece of the puzzle is a thoughtful, sensitive, earnest, and honest teacher who will translate, mediate, and facilitate student acquisition of knowledge and insight” (p. 177).

5.1.1 Music Educators and Cultural Bias As we begin this conversation, it is important to acknowledge that cultural bias is an issue that all educators, in all subject areas, in all places need to think about. We all possess certain cultural biases that influence our teaching practices––no teacher is immune to this phenomenon (Wurzel, 2004). These cultural biases develop slowly over time and are influenced by a wide variety of factors, such as environment, parental and family belief systems, cultural heritage, the process of identity formation, social traditions, religion, the media, previous school experiences, and ultimately university teacher preparation programs (Campbell, 2013; Drummond, 2005, 2010; Lind & McCoy, 2016; Wurzel, 2004). Because these biases are complex, multifaceted, and deeply engrained, they can be difficult to recognize and even more difficult to overcome. Relating this idea to music education specifically, many of today’s practicing music educators were educated and trained within systems that reinforced the ethnocentric and sometimes hegemonic norms discussed in Chaps. 3 and 4 (e.g., emphasis on Western repertoire and teaching/transmission methods, performance/competition–based paradigms; large-group ensembles). Because of our natural inclination is “to teach as we have been taught” (McCoy et al., 2009, p.  14)  – many of today’s music educators have inherently accepted and even embraced these norms, and thus, teach music (albeit sometimes unknowingly) in somewhat ethnocentric and often inequitable ways. In this chapter, I explore how specific practices and mindsets in music education relate to Bennett’s DMIS stages (Denial, Defense, Minimization, Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration). I provide “look fors” that can help us recognize ethnocentric tendencies in ourselves and others, encourage educators to reflect on why and how these ethnocentric tendencies develop, and provide several ideas for small, developmental steps that can promote growth towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. Moving forward, I argue educators who possess high levels of intercultural sensitivity themselves will be much more likely to cultivate the type of classroom environment that allows students to do the same.

5.2 Music Educator Denial: “It’s Just the Way Things Are …” Music educators who experience Denial unknowingly reproduce the system that is currently in place (the “status quo”). Their own personal conceptualization of what music education “is” or “should look like” is deeply engrained (Drummond, 2010)

5.3  Beyond Denial: Becoming “Wide-Awake”

85

and rarely/never consciously questioned. Many of these educators are products of undergraduate teacher training programs that are fixed, closed, and dictated by strict (if unspoken) rules about who has musical knowledge (the teacher) and who doesn’t (the students), which music is worth learning and what is not, which skills are worth mastering (reading staff notation and memorization) and which are not (improvisation), what is excellence, and what is not, etc. (Allsup, 2016). After leaving these programs, new music teachers (who have never been prompted to question the appropriateness of these practices) are busy trying to survive within the existing systems and do not have time or energy to consider the ways in which their school music program or classroom practices could or should function differently. Although some progress has been made, the Denial worldview is still a force to be reckoned with in music education. In 2004, Campbell hopefully stated, “A pathway lies just ahead that is well worth pursuing, as it is certain to lead teachers, who can thus lead their students, in knowing music with a capital “M,” Music, as it sounds and functions across the globe” (p. 28). Yet, eighteen years after Campbell originally made this statement, it is still too easy for music educators to exist in a perpetual state of Denial—ignoring and therefore denying the existence of cultural/ musical diversity and alternative music education paradigms/practices. Although myriad high-quality, culturally diverse teaching resources, innovative ideas, books, practical articles, and research-based training programs/certificates have emerged over the last twenty years, research indicates many practicing educators are still not engaging with these materials/opportunities/ideas in meaningful and transformative ways (Allsup, 2016; Cain & Walden, 2018; Campbell, 2018; Hess, 2018; Tuinstra, 2019). Instead, they remain quietly trapped in a matrix that encourages obedience, and rewards those who embrace the monotonous (yet comfortable) routine of reproducing and replicating the status quo. Although the Denial worldview is not usually rooted in malice or negative feelings about musical diversity, it is still very harmful. It physically leaves beyond large numbers of students who do not have access to private instruction or personal instruments and alienates students for whom the musical content feels irrelevant and exclusive. Additionally, it places students who do not identify with certain types of musical content and transmission methods at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to admission processes and assessment practices (Mellizo, 2020).

5.3 Beyond Denial: Becoming “Wide-Awake” To overcome the main issue related to Denial (noticing and confronting difference), music educators need more pressure to become “wide awake” (Greene, 1995, p. 4) to the vast musical world that Campbell described. Essentially, they need a “jolt” to awaken them “from the sleepy world of the status quo” (Allsup, 2003, p. 163). The most logical and effective place to apply the pressure required for music educators to move beyond the Denial stage is university teacher education programs, which can and should help students become “wide awake” to the musical

86

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

world around them before they enter the teaching profession. At the very least, pre-­ service music educators should have opportunities to engage with music beyond European classical repertory, develop and refine skills related to improvisation and composition, choose elective courses from a wide variety of options, and participate in more non-traditional and/or small group ensembles (Campbell et al., 2014). By making these types of structural changes (discussed more deeply in Chap. 4), university music departments can effectively ensure future music educators do not enter the field with a Denial worldview. These future music educators may not like, agree with, or choose to incorporate the diverse perspectives they encounter in their future classrooms, but at least they will be aware that such possibilities exist. Although the training that occurs in university teacher preparation programs is incredibly important, Howard et al. (2014) remind us that in-service music educators (those who are already out in the field) also possess “tremendous capacity for change” (p.  36). Since educators who are experiencing Denial are probably not reading this book, I contend it is up to the rest of us to recognize Denial when we see it in our colleagues, lead them towards a “window” of possibilities, and convince them to look through it. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to identify music educators who are experiencing Denial. These teachers make few (if any) attempts to incorporate culturally diverse perspectives in the curriculum (content or pedagogy; classroom or performance), and in general, do not seek out opportunities to learn about culturally diverse music traditions (local, global, popular, etc.), alternative pedagogical approaches/paradigms, and/or innovative trends on their own. Among other ideas, we can invite these colleagues to accompany us to performances in the community or encourage them to take advantage of professional development and training/certificate opportunities (e.g., professional conferences, modern band summits, webinars, culturally responsive pedagogy and world music pedagogy certificate courses, summer-­ session master’s degrees, etc.). We can purposefully engage them in conversations and direct them towards professional literature that we ourselves have found exciting and useful. We can step outside of our own comfort zone by proposing and presenting innovative sessions at regional conferences, and perhaps most importantly, advocate for these sessions to be part of the main conference program (as special interest group strands at these conferences tend to be sparsely attended). In short, we need to make continued and persistent efforts to increase the visibility of diverse curricular resources, materials and repertoire, alternative pedagogical approaches and paradigms, and new/innovative ideas. Although this is still a relatively new research trajectory, findings from my 2019 study indicate these types of efforts, especially targeted professional development opportunities, can be effective  (Mellizo, 2019). In this study, 8 of 10 practicing K–12 music educators who participated in a three-week professional development course in the area of world music education reported including more culturally diverse repertoire in their classes and/or performances during the following school year. Interviews one year after the completion of this course indicated these educators were also questioning other deeply engrained norms in the field. For example, one teacher participant questioned the dominance of staff notation as the primary

5.4  Music Educator Defense: “It’s the Way Things Should Be”

87

method of music transmission in classrooms, stating, “now I feel like you shouldn’t have to link every song back to a music literacy piece–because sometimes that’s not the way that it was meant to be” (p. 16). It is important to remember that the DMIS framework does not assume linearity. Individuals move through the continuum in their own way and at their own pace (Mellizo, 2018). As I described above, most participants in my 2019 study moved directly into Acceptance after having opportunities to develop a greater awareness of musical diversity and imagine curricular/pedagogical alternatives. Unfortunately, however, Bennett’s work indicates the resolution of issues related to Denial sometimes “sets up the conditions for the experience of Defense” (2004, p. 64).

5.4 Music Educator Defense: “It’s the Way Things Should Be” According to Bennett’s work, defensiveness becomes visible when “‘us’ and ‘them’ are forced into contact” (2017, p. 4). Educators who experience Defense understand that alternative paradigms and/or ideas for change exist but resist them because they feel threatened or have not yet developed a strong enough personal rationale for changing their practices/approach. Although “defensiveness” manifests in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons, it is quite easy to recognize. Music educators who are experiencing Defense sometimes respond to awareness of different music or approaches by denigrating them, making comments like, “pop songs are poorly written and overly simplistic and don’t belong in the curriculum.” They might also denigrate those who openly resist certain practices, making comments like, “they are just against competition because they never win,” or, “they’re just not willing to put in the work required to achieve excellence.” Another indicator of Defense is an educator’s tendency to assert the superiority of certain music traditions or their own training/practices, touting the prestigiousness of the program within which they trained or making comments like “it is my responsibility to ensure my students perform high quality literature” or “[insert name of program or school] only accepts students who demonstrate the highest levels of musicianship and technical precision.” In some cases, defensiveness is exacerbated by a perceived need for self-­ preservation. As Bates (2013) stated, “In music education, professional recognition is based almost exclusively upon a single “bottom line” ––high levels of performance by large ensembles” (p. 77). It is therefore easy to understand why music teachers would resist common suggestions for curricular change, such as adding more diverse course options, diversifying repertoire, and shifting pedagogical emphasis (creativity vs. technical precision). Even though these changes would allow more students in the school to take advantage of the benefits a musical education can offer, they represent a threat to what many individual music educators see as their own “bottom line.” Especially in the short-term, there is a chance these

88

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

types of changes would lead to lower class numbers in “traditional” ensembles, lower scores at competitions, less positive recognition from school leaders, lower respect among music colleagues, poor teaching evaluations, and the worst-case scenario: Loss of their job. Before exploring how we can help ourselves and others move past educator defensiveness, which, as I have just illustrated, occurs for valid reasons, I will consider several taken-for-granted beliefs/practices that I believe have contributed to lingering music educator defensiveness: Aesthetic philosophy, methodolatry, and autocracy.

5.4.1 Aesthetic Philosophy Music educators who have adopted a primarily aesthetic philosophical stance are particularly susceptible to a Defense worldview. When interpreted narrowly, aesthetic philosophy assumes that some music traditions (usually selections derived from European-based art music) are objectively better than others, and therefore more appropriate for study and performance in formal educational settings (Bradley, 2007; Regelski, 2018). Some authors argue the aesthetic rationale for music education is still privileged (sometimes subconsciously) within most university music programs (Bradley, 2017; Drummond, 2010; Regelski, 2016, 2018). Regelski (2016) stated, “While aesthetic theory is rarely taught directly, a connoisseurship paradigm for ‘high’ concert music … is nonetheless promoted indirectly by implication and socialization” (p. 23). He continued, “an enormous amount of time and energy has aspiring teachers preparing to attain ‘high’ artistic criteria–as though these are (or should be) the ideological focus of school music” (p. 24). Unfortunately, this type of philosophical indoctrination in university music departments (even when done unintentionally) cultivates individual music educators who are blindly devoted to aesthetic ideology and believe that their primary job is to help their future students perform “‘good music’ to high performance levels” (Regelski, 2002, p. 112).

5.4.2 Methodolatry Music teachers who subscribe to a particular “method” of teaching music might also be predisposed to a defensive worldview. Regelski (2002) referred to a teacher’s “blind faith in and devotion to a technicist method” as “methodolatry” (p. 111). Although teaching methods such as Kodaly, Orff, and Dalcroze (among many others) can be useful when implemented carefully and critically, I argue blind faith, strict adherence, and/or devotion to one particular method or another is a barrier to progress towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity.

5.4  Music Educator Defense: “It’s the Way Things Should Be”

89

Teachers who engage in methodolatry “simply expect their methods and materials to just ‘work’” (Regelski, 2018, p. 34), at all times and with all students. Because the teacher believes so deeply in the “goodness” of their “method”, they are absolved from any responsibility to think critically about their instructional practices, which leads to complacency and a lack of accountability (Regelski, 2002, 2018). As Regelski (2002) stated, “Any failure of students to learn–if noticed at all–is attributed by default to ‘uncontrolled variables’ such as lack of practice, no talent, no ‘musical intelligence’, parental laxity, too much television, lack of budget, scheduling problems, and so on” (p.  111). The “method” becomes what Allsup (2016) referred to as “the Law.” Adhering to “the Law” results in perceived efficiency and good “products”, which makes the music teacher feel successful, even when students (and the teacher) are not enjoying the music making process (Benedict, 2009). Again, it is easy to understand why teachers who have spent weeks, months, summers, and years getting “trained” in a particular method would feel threatened by suggestions for change. These methods become a fundamental part of the teacher’s identity, and influence their thinking, “in and out of the classroom” (Benedict, 2009, p. 213). Certifications in said methods serve to increase teachers’ social and cultural capital (Benedict, 2009) and therefore, contribute to very clear “us” and “them” distinctions within the music education community (those who adhere to the method and those who do not).

5.4.3 Autocracy When considering reasons for music educator “defensiveness”, it is also important to remember that music education has historically functioned as a very “teacher-­ directed” field. Many music educators consider their primary role in the classroom to be “deliverers of fixed knowledge” (Lee, 2018, p. 43). Within secondary school music performance ensembles, hierarchies exacerbate this tendency. The “teacher” (often called the “director”) is expected to be the “expert,” and makes all important decisions related to repertoire selection, interpretation, managing rehearsals, correcting errors, etc… (Kratus, 2007). Members of the ensemble (students) are expected to submit, obey, absorb, and internalize (Allsup, 2016). Paulo Freire referred to this autocratic approach as the “banking concept of education” (1970/1996, p. 53). He explained, “the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor … the more completely he/she (the teacher) fills the receptacles, the better a teacher he/she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are” (p. 53). Although “banking concept of education” is a problem that transcends subject areas, Kratus (2007) argued, “It (music education) is an autocratic model of teaching that has no parallel in any other school subject” (p. 46). Music teachers (especially ensemble “directors”) who have been trained to “teach” within this hierarchical model (and perhaps have come to enjoy the respect their presence at the front of the ensemble commands) might be

90

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

reluctant to relinquish their role of “expert” in favor of democratic practices that give students more voice and choice.

5.5 Beyond Defense: Starting Small Sometimes, defensiveness stems from the situations described in the previous sections––teachers feel like their core beliefs/values, position of power, preferred teaching approaches, expertise, or previous training programs are being attacked. “Successful” music educators might feel a sense of loyalty to structural norms that have elevated them to positions of power and privilege and continue to provide them with high levels of social and cultural capital. Some resistance is more practical in nature. Maybe teachers are worried about the ramifications of decreased numbers in their classes or don’t feel qualified (or simply do not want) to teach courses outside of their specialty area (e.g., non-traditional ensembles, music technology classes, modern bands, or guitar ensembles, etc.). Whatever the reason, the key to overcoming educator defensiveness is coming to terms with and resolving “us” and “them” distinctions. When we recognize defensiveness in ourselves and others, Bennett (2017) has contended one of the most effective strategies is to “focus on commonalities” (p. 4). First and foremost, we must be willing to engage in respectful and humble dialogue with people who have different perspectives. Freire (1970/1996) discussed this idea at length, stating: How can I dialogue if I always project ignorance onto others and never perceive my own? How can I dialogue if I regard myself as a case apart from others? … How can I dialogue if I consider myself a member of the in-group “pure” men, the owners of truth and knowledge? … How can I dialogue if I am closed to—and even offended by—the contributions of others (p. 71)?

Freire argued, “trust is established by dialogue” (p. 72). Within conversations with other music educators, we can establish trust by assuming positive intent and stressing two important similarities: Our belief that music education is inherently valuable and our commitment to helping students become better musicians and people. Part of establishing trust with music educators who are experiencing defense involves dispelling the myth that by suggesting changes, we are trying “overthrow” existing programs (Cutietta, 2017, p. 262). As Campbell (2004) argued, it is possible to preserve “aspects of curricular content and methods that have ‘worked’ for generations” while making “a broader perspective … the norm rather than the exception across the board” (p. xvii). Allsup (2016) recommends trying to work within existing institutional structures to initiate small changes that respect tradition while embracing innovation (rather than trying to dismantle the system itself). Using the “proud history of large ensembles” in the United States and Canada as an example, he encourages ensemble directors to consider how they can reach a greater diversity of students through these classes, open their ears to a greater diversity of

5.5  Beyond Defense: Starting Small

91

music, and “expand the range of skills and knowledge we bring to an educational encounter” (p. 46). When fellow educators are exhibiting characteristics of Defense, specific suggestions for change should be small and rationalized by shared values—for example, the idea that “the more students that study music, the more important music is” (Cutietta, 2017, p.  260)—new course offerings “won’t reduce our performance ensembles; instead, they strengthen our music departments by reaching new students (and there are plenty!)” (p. 261). Convincing colleagues to support new musical offerings as extracurricular activities can be an important step in the right direction. Although extracurricular music courses function as “add-ons” that leave the core curriculum intact (Campbell et al., 2014), they can pave the way for more substantial changes in the future. Defensiveness can also be neutralized by a focus on community, collaboration, and/or collective action. For example, multi-school/district/city-wide concerts provide opportunities for both teachers and students to build comradery and learn from each other in a non-threatening environment. This type of event reduces the workload shouldered by individual teachers and promotes shared responsibility; each teacher is tasked with choosing and directing one or two songs on the program. If teachers play or sing along with students in the ensemble when not on the podium, this type of event can also be a powerful way to disrupt hierarchical structures. Several music education scholars propose additional ideas that have potential to neutralize the defensive worldview in music education. For example, Smith (2022) discusses the possibility of designing collaborative (as opposed to competitive) interschool marching band shows that are centered around a unifying topic or theme. Fortune et al. (2022) share ideas for putting the “festive back in student festivals”, such as eliminating numeric scores, making repertoire lists more inclusive, and adding a shared performance component (students from several schools perform a piece together). They argue simply initiating more conversations about the “whys” of festival experiences can be a step in the right direction. Finally, I argue reassurance and validation can go a long way in terms of helping fellow music educators move past defensiveness. As I’ve stated previously, change can be scary and uncomfortable. Even if a colleague’s efforts to diversify seem “superficial” or “tokenistic” (indicators of Minimization), we should try to recognize and celebrate their efforts for what they are at this point in their development: movement through the DMIS continuum, and towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. Suggestions for improvement or philosophical discussions about the problems with “additive multiculturalism” (Hess, 2018, p. 136) should be avoided until individuals have clearly achieved ethnorelative worldviews (see Chap. 2 for an in-depth discussion of ethnorelativism). At this point, these ideas are likely to be received negatively or rejected altogether and might even drive teachers more deeply into Denial or Defense (Bennett, 1993, 2017).

92

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

5.6 Music Educator Minimization: Performing Tolerance Unlike the Defense worldview, the Minimization worldview orientation is not outwardly hostile toward difference. In fact, many music educators who experience Minimization outwardly appear “tolerant” of musical diversity (especially from a content perspective). However, they fail to recognize how their “acceptance” of difference is shaped by superficial and stereotypical knowledge and understandings (Abril & Robinson, 2019). Deep down, music educators who experience Minimization expect all students to experience music in similar ways (the same way they do). In many cases, their implicit bias towards Western art music, related pedagogy, and performance norms still overshadows their attempts to diversify. The work of music education scholar John Drummond can help us understand why the Minimization develops and is so common in our field. He stated: The likelihood is that we came to a love of music at an early age through involvement in one particular kind of music … we know what we like, and it is reflected in the sound recordings we purchase, the musicians we mix with, the music we share with friends, and the choices we make about the musical activities we take part in and the musical events we attend. We are, in a sense, naturally prejudiced towards certain musics, and because we have a subjective involvement with them, we may find it difficult to view them objectively (2010, p. 118).

Again, Minimization in music education is easy to identify if you know what you are looking for. These educators sometimes include “tokens” of diversity (one or two “diverse” songs) to break up the monotony, add exotic flavor, or bring an element of political correctness to a concert program (Hess, 2013, 2015a). Colorful clothing/costumes and stereotypical props are used to make these performances more “authentic” or “exciting.” When culturally diverse music is included in daily lessons, it is often taught from one pedagogical perspective (e.g., five-line staff notation, solfege, hand signs), regardless of transmission norms within the original cultural setting. English language lyrics (or the primary language of students in the classroom) often replace the language of origin, “Westernized” accompaniments (style and instrumentation) are added, and cultural, historical, and/or political context is overlooked. Yes, “diverse” perspectives are included to some extent, but important musical/cultural nuances are marginalized and sometimes ignored completely. According to Bennett (2004), people who experience Minimization might believe they are much more interculturally sensitive than they actually are. He explained, “Particularly for people of dominant cultures, Minimization tends to mask recognition of their own culture…and the institutional privilege it affords its members” (p. 67). Music educators who experience Minimization engage in some of the practices described previously because they are “safe and acceptable way(s) to engage with diversity, allowing subjects to perform themselves as ‘tolerant’ and also engage in self-congratulation for said tolerance” (Hess, 2013, p. 76). Through “encounters with ‘non-threatening’ forms of culture,” these educators come “to know themselves as ‘tolerant,’ cosmopolitan, and sophisticated subjects” (p. 76).

5.7  Beyond Minimization: Developing Cultural Self-Awareness

93

Many educators who experience Minimization genuinely care about principles such as equality and fairness—when these principles are framed from their own musical point of view—which is problematic from a social justice perspective. Because they do not fully perceive differences between “equality” and “equity,” these educators often advocate for better access to music programs that already exist (e.g., band/choir/orchestra and related instruments, lessons, etc.) instead of “challenging existing ideologies, propaganda, and systems of inequity” (Benedict, 2009, p. 222). The same educator who argues all children should have access to music as a part of their general education might not support initiatives designed to make this ideal a reality (e.g., adding “non-traditional” ensembles or music technology courses; prioritizing student voice in repertoire selection; dismantling competitive and hierarchical structures).

5.7 Beyond Minimization: Developing Cultural Self-Awareness Although the Minimizationworldview orientation in music education is tolerant of difference to a point, it is still ethnocentric and therefore, problematic. This worldview prevents well-meaning educators from disrupting conventional notions of curriculum and promotes superficial, stereotypical, and performative interpretations of diversity. Repertoire, musical concepts, instruments, transmission methods, and assessment practices associated with the Western classical musical perspective remain at the center (and in a distinct position of power) within the curriculum. To bridge the divide between ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism, music educators must overcome what Bennett referred to as “the assumption of similarity” (2011, p. 5) by developing higher levels of cultural self-awareness. Essentially, they must come to understand their own music, practices, and preferences as “a part of cultural diversity, not apart from it” (Drummond, 2010, p. 122). Many music educators who operate from a Minimization perspective have previously only engaged in “culture-learning” (as opposed to “intercultural learning”) (Bennett, 2012). Whereas culture-learning is the acquisition of specific knowledge about and perhaps skills (like language or technical music skills) in an alternative cultural setting, intercultural-­learning requires much deeper cultural comparisons—comparisons that cannot be made if individuals “do not have a mental baseline for their own culture(s)” (p. 6). On the other hand, intercultural learning “is transferable to other cultural contexts” and can often lead to the “development of global citizenship ­and/ or other manifestations of a permanently heightened awareness and appreciation of cultural difference” (p. 6). Individuals who are experiencing Denial or Defense can engage in culture-­ learning but are not yet ready to engage in intercultural-learning. In other words, they can learn something about another musical culture but do not experience it in

94

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

particularly complex or meaningful ways. When educators reach the level of Minimization they are no longer threatened by the idea of cultural difference, and therefore are developmentally “ready” to engage in the process of critical self-­ reflection required to “place more of their own behavior in a cultural context” (Bennett, 1993, p. 45). As a start, individual music educators can ask themselves questions like: • • • • • • • • • •

What factors do I consider when choosing repertoire? What makes quality literature “quality”? What makes good music “good”? Are most students engaged and motivated to learn in my classroom? How effective is my chosen methodology? Are all students learning? Are my students realizing their creative potential? Are the learning experiences that occur in my classroom preparing my students for life-long musical engagement? What is my primary role in the classroom? Expert? Knowledge Keeper? Co-­ Learner? Director? Why? How many of my lessons are teacher-directed, as opposed to student-centered? Why do I teach that way? How was I taught (as a child and in college)? Was this method effective? Why? “How much of what and how I teach have I uncritically accepted on the basis of how I’ve been taught?” (Regelski, 2002, p. 112).

5.7.1 Is Critical Self Reflection Effective? The classroom setting (undergraduate and graduate programs, professional development sessions, etc.) is the best place to engage pre- and in-service music educators in the type of critical reflection needed to develop cultural and musical self-awareness. These conversations should be facilitated by music teacher educators who have already asked themselves some of the difficult questions listed above. Music education researchers have only just begun to explore the effectiveness of these types of interventions. As Bradley (2017) stated, “Little has been done at the institutional level to develop curriculum that provides teacher candidates with what is crucial: meaningful opportunities to experience diverse musical traditions or to think about the difficult questions surrounding the arts related to race, ethnicity, gender, socio-economics, ability-disability, language, and so forth” (p. 209). In my own 2019 study, I found that found that all practicing K-12 music educator participants (n = 10) reported distinct changes in their teaching practices after having opportunities to consider and discuss issues related to cultural diversity and systemic change within the context of a summer course in world music education (Mellizo, 2019). Throughout the course, these educators actively engaged with music from several different cultural settings, read articles about important topics (e.g., equity and access; culturally responsive teaching; world music pedagogy) and reflected on some of the questions listed above. One year after participating, they

5.8  Music Educator Acceptance: Difference “Is”

95

made comments like, “Now I feel like you shouldn’t have to link every song back to a music literacy piece,” “I realize it is important for our students to also experience music without the goal of performance,” and “Not very many published pieces include contextual information – which is really frustrating!” Abril and Robinson (2019) found that both situated and simulated culturally diverse learning experiences effectively prompted pre- and in-service music educators to move past stereotypes and generalizations, and develop more complex understandings of culture, identity, and musical preferences. In their study, some participants physically spent time in an unfamiliar cultural setting while others examined issues related to cultural diversity, equity, and systems of power through simulated activities in the classroom. A common factor between the two groups of music teachers in this study was that they were guided through the process of self-­ reflection and critical discussion by culturally sensitive university teacher educators. Although more research is needed in this area, these findings indicate both situated (experiencing cultural/musical diversity through real-life field experiences) and simulated cultural learning experiences (learning and discussing in the classroom setting) can promote critical self-reflection. These types of learning experiences can be enhanced through opportunities to read relevant literature, submit written reflections, and engage in guided critical discussions with peers. As music teachers develop a deeper awareness of the ways in which their own “culture” (unquestioned practices, assumptions, biases) sometimes prevents students from achieving musical fulfillment and success in music classrooms, they will likely be more willing to engage in (or at least consider) making changes that can make our current system and their own practices more equitable.

5.8 Music Educator Acceptance: Difference “Is” Music educators who have made the important transition from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism possess higher levels of musical/cultural self-awareness. They accept and embrace their conceptualization of music as just one of many equally complex and viable ways of experiencing music that exist in the world (Anderson & Campbell, 2010). Alternative forms of music-making and different approaches to teaching music are no longer viewed as inferior or superior; they are just different. These music educators no longer believe their primary role is to cultivate students’ “musical taste” or to lead them toward life-changing aesthetic experiences that can only be triggered through encounters with “high-quality” art music. Music educators who experience Acceptance are curious about cultural/musical diversity and understand that Acceptance does not equal agreement (Bennett, 2017). Although they may not “like” every culturally diverse music tradition they encounter, they respect all traditions and appreciate their importance in peoples’ lives. They have also developed at least some awareness of how the norms of the current system sometimes perpetuate inequities, although they may still lack the confidence and some of the skills required to enact their values and ethical principles in practice.

96

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Ironically, teachers who experience Acceptance technically possess higher levels of intercultural sensitivity than teachers who experience Minimization, but are probably less likely to include culturally diverse perspectives in their curriculum. These teachers have developed a deeper awareness of the ways in which culturally diverse learning experiences in the music classroom can sometimes have unanticipated, undesirable outcomes related to essentialism, tokenism, stereotyping/generalizing, oversimplification, and exoticism (Campbell, 2018; Hess, 2013, 2018; Schippers & Campbell, 2012). They understand that diversifying the curriculum involves more than meets the eye–it can be complex and time-consuming. They do not want to be viewed as “being inauthentic, not respecting the tradition, or presenting music out of context” (Schippers & Campbell, 2012, p.  93) and sometimes respond to their increased awareness of these types of important issues and related fears by avoiding culturally diverse and/or unfamiliar music traditions altogether (Campbell, 2018; Schippers & Campbell, 2012).

5.9 Beyond Acceptance: Taking Risks Moving beyond Acceptance requires music educators to embrace their ethical responsibility to move from theory to practice, even when it seems scary and overwhelming. As Lind and McCoy (2016) argued, “If we begin to consider every action that we take in our classroom as a moral action, and we understand that these actions have consequences that will be different for various populations, we can better develop strategies that meet the needs of all students” (p. 34). This step in the developmental process requires “courage to break away from our familiar ways of seeing and doing things” (Wong, 2018, p. 46) and acknowledgment that we will most certainly make mistakes along the way. Hess (2018) unpacked several “stumbling blocks” (p. 131) that might occur as music educators start to infuse culturally diverse perspectives into the curriculum, such as additive/superficial multiculturalism, negative reactions from students, and assumptions based on cultural heritage. Hess acknowledged the “messiness” of this process and encouraged us to be vigilant about these issues moving forward. Yet, she commended music educators who are willing to take risks, make mistakes, learn from them, and share their reflections with others. Moving beyond one’s comfort zone requires humility, which Coppola (2020) described as a virtue indicated by one’s objective and accurate sense of self, “other-­ oriented motivations toward others” and “openness to new ideas, cultures, and worldviews” (p. 51). Humble teachers can forgive themselves when they make mistakes because their dedication to providing students with meaningful musical learning experiences outweighs their need to be “right” or the “expert.” Regarding teaching music from culturally diverse or unfamiliar settings, humility allows us to accept our own “partial knowledge” (Hess, 2021, p. 20) and gives us permission to seek out, accept, and appreciate the expertise of others. Released from the expectation to hold all knowledge and transmit it neatly to our students, we are free to adopt

5.9  Beyond Acceptance: Taking Risks

97

the role of “co-learner and leader who offers paths to diverse music cultures” (Lee, 2018, p. 43). To bridge the gap between Acceptance and Adaptation, teachers can seek out opportunities to learn about different pedagogical approaches or develop skills in a new music tradition (through summer courses, webinars, conferences, professional literature, cultural immersion, playing in a new type of performance ensemble, watching other teachers teach, etc.). Within the next section, I will expand on two pedagogical approaches that are quickly gaining traction in our field: Culturally Responsive Teaching and World Music Pedagogy.

5.9.1 Culturally Responsive Teaching Gay (2010) defined culturally responsive teaching as a pedagogical strategy that uses “the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounter more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 31). In recent years, several authors have applied these ideas to the field of music education specifically (Abril, 2013; Lind & McCoy, 2016; Shaw, 2016). Abril (2013) explained culturally responsive teaching as moving “the attention from the things we teach to the children we teach” (p. 8). As music educators begin to learn about the ways in which their students’ cultural and musical backgrounds differ from their own, they will be better equipped to construct and implement classroom musical learning experiences that are more meaningful and relevant to their lives. According to Shaw (2016), “Culturally responsive pedagogy affords music teachers opportunities to meaningfully bridge students’ home and school experiences, expand their musical and cultural horizons, and affirm their identities” (p. 66). At the elementary level, music teachers can become more culturally responsive by paying closer attention to the music students make in more unstructured settings (e.g., the recess playground), and subsequently incorporating the repertoire they hear in informal settings (e.g., songs/chants/rhymes) into the formal curriculum (Campbell, 2010). At the secondary level, teachers can give students more direct input/ownership over the repertoire selection process or lead short discussions about the type of music their students listen to after school and at home. Music teachers at all levels of the system can build bridges between home and school (informal/formal) musical experiences by inviting parents into the classroom to share about a special family music tradition or by attending students’ out-of-school music recitals/concerts. As teachers take the time to learn about their students’ unique backgrounds and life experiences, they will also be better equipped to adjust instructional strategies to match their preferred musical learning styles (e.g., utilizing multiple methods of transmission and/or providing a variety of options for documenting personal compositions). These types of small changes can make a big difference in terms of helping more students feel successful and valued in the music classroom setting.

98

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

5.9.2 World Music Pedagogy World Music Pedagogy, a relatively recent phenomenon in our field, has great potential to guide practicing music educators through the “hows” of developing meaningful learning experiences that honor both the “‘old’ (as in the original culture of the music) and the ‘new’ (the culture of the students and instructional setting)” (Campbell, 2018, p. 113). Rather than targeting specific technical skills and knowledge in one specific music tradition, this approach seeks to provide concrete pedagogical tools that can be easily applied across a wide variety of musical learning contexts. World Music Pedagogy is broken down into the following five distinct dimensions (Campbell, 2018, p. 114): 1. Attentive Listening: Directed listening experiences 2. Engaged Listening: Actively participating while listening 3. Enactive Listening: Listening to performance level 4. Creating: Extensions, improvisations, compositions 5. Integrating: Connections to life and curriculum in other areas These dimensions can be embedded in the learning process in a variety of ways. In some cases, the first three listening dimensions might “occur as separate entities within a (single) class session” (Campbell, 2018, p. 114). In others, learning experiences related to these dimensions might be spread out over weeks or months as part of a longer unit. Important cultural and contextual information related to the integration dimension (e.g., Who performs this music? Why? Where? In what ways is this music historically and culturally important?) is often interspersed throughout the learning process (Campbell, 2018). The Routledge World Music Pedagogy Series (2018/2019/2020), comprised of seven distinct volumes, offers many useful and specific examples of how this approach can be brought to life in a variety of music learning environments, including: Elementary general music classrooms, choral classrooms, instrumental ensembles, early childhood settings, innovative secondary ensembles, higher education, and school/community intersections. Each summer, certificate courses in World Music Pedagogy (sponsored by Smithsonian Folkways Recordings) are offered at a variety of locations across the United States, including the University of Washington, West Virginia University, and St. Thomas University (Minnesota).

5.9.3 Value Relativity As music educators develop new knowledge and pedagogical skills and become more comfortable taking risks in the classroom, they will likely encounter one additional issue to overcome during the Acceptance stage: Value relativity. Bennett (2004) described value relativity as being able “to take the perspective of another

5.10  Music Educator Adaptation: Developing New Knowledge and Skills

99

culture without losing your own” (p. 70). Essentially, music educators must discover for themselves how it is possible to diversify the curriculum and their practices while still maintaining their own distinct musical identity. Although this balancing act is not always easy, it is important to remember that we do not need to abandon own unique and special musical preferences and attachments in order to embody and promote high levels of ethnorelativism. We absolutely can and should share our musical preferences and personal experiences with our students. However, we need to develop strategies for balancing our personal perspectives with the musical perspectives of the students in their classrooms as we create environments in which ALL can learn and grow. “Our” preferred music tradition should be framed as only one of many beautiful and interesting traditions that exist in this world, and “our” preferred method of music transmission as one of many viable ways of teaching and learning music. Music education should function “as a celebration of pluralism, an ongoing opportunity for the development of a new awareness of the richness of human life, and a new understanding of its possibilities” (Drummond, 2010, p. 123). Patricia Shehan Campbell’s personal reflections on her experiences as a white, female, middle-class, Catholic, yet distinctly “multicultural” educator illustrate the ways in which music teachers can reconcile their cultural backgrounds and musical values with the ever-changing needs of their students in an increasingly pluralistic world. In 2002, she reflected: In all these years, my Whiteness has not gone away … living through a period of ethnic angst, I am nostalgic for my family’s past––and thus the jigs and the polkas, and even Riverdance, the post-modern version of Irish step-dancing … but based on my personal journey, there are musical and teaching convictions that have evolved … The input of my students and their reactions to my teaching have had a major influence on my views of music, education, and culture today. When a young child returning from a museum trip talks excitedly about the use of animal skins on musical instruments in Nigeria, there are lessons to be learned about children’s curiosities, the museum as a resource, and the material culture of the Yoruba people of Nigeria. When a graduate student (and experienced teacher) enthusiastically learns Khmer-language songs but then raises concerns about teaching them to Vietnamese students (whose cultural history predisposes some of them to repudiate Cambodia, its people, and its American descendants), the gains are a greater awareness of cultural attitudes and opportunities for collective problem-solving on issues of bias reduction. In these cases, students inform us of classroom realities we cannot anticipate but which subsequently guide our instructional thoughts and actions (pp. 252–253).

5.10 Music Educator Adaptation: Developing New Knowledge and Skills Music teachers who have reached the level of Adaptation have established a strong personal rationale for embracing and including diverse perspectives in the curriculum and do so in rich and meaningful ways—mindfully adjusting their pedagogical practices depending on the cultural setting of the music (e.g., considering issues such as transmission and sociocultural context). They engage in critical reflection

100

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

and become more aware of how their own innate cultural and musical biases and assumptions privilege certain types of students while putting others at a disadvantage in the music classroom. They use culturally responsive practices, become much more comfortable adopting the role of “co-learner” in the classroom, and are eager to try new strategies to better meet to their students’ unique cultural and musical needs. These teachers are mindful of the ways in which current assessment practices privilege certain students and place others at a distinct disadvantage in school music classrooms and try to implement more equitable methods of assessment. For example, they might provide more than one option for documenting personal compositions (e.g., written notation, iconic notation, or audio recording) and/or provide aurally-inclined musical learners with alternatives to traditional sight-reading quizzes. Sometimes, these teachers also get involved at the systemic level: Perhaps by serving on district curriculum committees or engaging in “policy thinking and action” (Schmidt & Colwell, 2017, p. 2) at a variety of levels (building leadership teams, professional organizations, local government, special interest groups, etc.).

5.11 Music Educator Integration: Does it Exist? Moving from Adaptation to Integration requires music educators to develop advanced levels of proficiency/understanding in an alternative music culture. These educators embody what Palmer (1994) called “bi-culturalism.”. Bi-cultural music educators can “lay aside [their] own viewpoints … and look at other cultures in ways that allow [them] to experience their views of reality and truth” (p.  22). Although the Integration worldview in music education is rare, I argue it does exist, and in many cases, develops after an individual has spent a substantial amount of time living in and/or making music in an alternative cultural setting (sometimes these individuals were brought up in bi-cultural/musical households). Bennett (2004) was careful to clarify that Integration should not be considered “better” than Adaptation–just different. Both music teachers who experience Adaptation and Integration engage in perspective-taking because they understand that musical values and norms are relative. The key difference between these worldviews is whether these perspective shifts are initiated consciously or whether they have become part of who you authentically “are” as a music educator. Teachers who reach Integration move in an out of musical/cultural worldviews with ease––listening and understanding its inherent cues, and hearing and experiencing it as a cultural member experiences it (Palmer, 1994). Hess’s description of Sarah, a teacher participant in her dissertation study, provides an excellent example of what an Integration worldview might look like in the music classroom and how students might respond. She observed: Sarah had studied Gamelan extensively, and her program was multi-faceted. She drew on her own knowledge, and that of practicing Gamelan musicians. Not only was she able to provide a complex and nuanced view of Gamelan herself, but she also introduced students

5.12 Conclusion

101

to a wonderful dancer/drummer, an opportunity to play a set of professional instruments, and the chance to regularly visit the Indonesian Consulate … The epistemology for Javanese Gamelan is significantly different than one for Western classical music, and the students in Sarah’s program moved between multiple epistemologies, adapting their orientations toward the music as necessary … chang(ing) musical styles without seeming to give it a second thought” (2015b, p. 81).

5.12 Conclusion Although structural changes to music education systems themselves are necessary to overcome some of the ethnocentric and hegemonic norms that exist in our field, the role of individual music educators during this process should not be underestimated. As music educators develop higher levels of intercultural sensitivity themselves, they will become more aware of (and hopefully more motivated to resist) some of the ethnocentric systemic tendencies that currently exist in music education (described in Chaps. 3 and 4). To move from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism from an individual perspective, music educators must first recognize that their own conceptualization of music education (the system in which they were probably educated) is not universal … essentially, they must become aware that alternative practices and paradigms exist. Although this point seems obvious, issues commonly attributed to the Denial stage are still surprisingly widespread in our field. Once music educators become aware of these differences, they must accept alternative conceptualizations/approaches/ paradigms as unfamiliar, but not superior or inferior to their own. Finally, and perhaps most importantly to bridge the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism, individual music educators must develop a deeper awareness of their own cultural biases and recognize their assumptions about what music education “is” or “should be” as only one of many viable and valid options. Culturally sensitive music educators (those who have achieved ethnorelative worldviews) view alternative music education paradigms as equally complex to their own. Over time, they develop a strong personal rationale (a “why”) that outweighs feelings of hesitation or fears about engaging with culturally diverse music traditions and/or pedagogical approaches that are unfamiliar. They become more willing to take risks and are motivated to develop new knowledge and pedagogical skills because they possess a strong desire to ensure ALL students in their classroom have access to an equitable and personally meaningful music education. After struggling through the process of acknowledging and accepting their own innate cultural/ musical biases, these educators will be much better equipped to cultivate their students’ emerging global dispositions through learning experiences in the music classroom (the topic of the next chapter).

102

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

References Abril, C. R. (2013). Toward a more culturally responsive general music classroom. General Music Today, 27(1), 6–11. Abril, C. R., & Robinson, N. R. (2019). Comparing situated and simulated learning approaches to developing culturally responsive music teachers. International Journal of Music Education, 37(3), 440–453. Allsup, R. E. (2003). Praxis and the possible: Thoughts on the writings of Maxine Greene and Paulo Freire. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 11(2), 157–169. Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Indiana University Press. Anderson, W., & Campbell, P.  S. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural perspectives in music education (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Education. Bates, V.  C. (2013). Music education unplugged. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 12(2), 75–90. Benedict, C. (2009). Processes of alienation: Marx, Orff and Kodaly. British Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 213–224. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M. J. (2011). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. IDRInstitute. Retrieved from: http://www.idrinstitute.org. Bennett, M. J. (2012). Turning cross-cultural contact into intercultural learning. In Proceedings from the Universidad 2012 8th international congress on higher education. The University for Sustainable Development. Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y.  Kim (Ed.), International encyclopedia of intercultural development. Wiley. Bradley, D. (2007). The sounds of silence: Talking race in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory in Music Education, 6(4), 132–162. Bradley, D. (2017). Standing in the shadows of Mozart: Music education, world music, and curricular change. In R. D. Moore (Ed.), College music curricula for a new century (pp. 205–222). Oxford University Press. Cain, M., & Walden, J. (2018). Musical diversity in the classroom: Ingenuity and integrity in sound exploration. British Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 5–19. Campbell, P.  S. (2002). In study of expressive cultures: The pathway of a white middle-class music teacher. In B.  Reimer (Ed.), World musics and music education: Facing the issues (pp. 239–258). Rowman & Littlefield Education. Campbell, P.  S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, experiencing culture. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2013). Children, teachers, and ethnomusicologists: Traditions and transformations of music in schools. In B. Alge & O. Kramer (Eds.), Beyond borders: Welt-Musik-Padagogik (pp. 13–24). FDR. Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Campbell, P. S., Myers, D., & Sarath, E. (2014). Transforming music study from its foundations: A manifesto for progressive change in the undergraduate preparation of music majors. College Music Society. Coppola, W. J. (2020). An artistic virtue? Student perceptions of humility in music participation. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 50–58.

References

103

Cutietta, R. A. (2017). K–16 music education in a democratic society. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 253–265). Oxford University Press. Drummond, J. (2005). Cultural diversity in music education: Why bother? In Cultural diversity in music education: Directions and challenges of the 21st century. : Australian Academic Press. Drummond, J. (2010). Re-thinking western art music: A perspective shift for music educators. International Journal of Music Education, 28(2), 117–126. Fortune, B., Clingan, K., Nussbaum, K., & Benton, C. (2022, June 16). Let’s put the festive back in student festivals! [Webinar]. National Association for Music Education. https://vimeo. com/721530655/04a9b14dcb Freire, P. (1970/1996). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hess, J. (2013). Performing tolerance and curriculum: The politics of self-congratulation, identity formation, and pedagogy in world music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(1), 66–91. Hess, J. (2015a). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. Hess, J. (2015b). Upping the ‘anti-’: The value of an anti-racist theoretical framework in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 62–92. Hess, J. (2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. Hess, J. (2021). Cultural competence or the mapping of racialized space: Cartographies of music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 227, 7–28. Howard, K., Swanson, M., & Campbell, P. S. (2014). The diversification of music teacher education: Six vignettes from a movement in progress. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 26–37. Kratus, J. (2007). Music education at the tipping point. Music Educators Journal, 94(2), 42–48. Lee, S. (2018). General music teachers’ backgrounds and multicultural repertoire selection. UPDATE: Application of Research in Music Education, 36(2), 38–44. Lind, V.  L., & McCoy, C.  L. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge. McCoy, C. L., Butler, A., & Lind, V. R. (2009). Conceptually framing music teaching and learning within the context of culture: Implications for music teacher education. In Collaborative action for change: Selected proceedings from the 2007 symposium on music teacher education (pp. 1–24). Rowman & Littlefield. Mellizo, J. M. (2018). Applications of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) in music education. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(2), 46–67. Mellizo, J. M. (2019). Exploring the effect of professional development on practice in world music education: A mixed methods study. Research and Issues in Music Education, 15, Article 5. Mellizo, J.  M. (2020). Music education, curriculum design, and assessment: Imagining a more equitable approach. Music Educators Journal, 106(4), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432120917188 Palmer, A. (1994). On cross-cultural music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 4(1), 19–24. Regelski, T. A. (2002). On “methodolatry” and music teaching as critical and reflective praxis. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102–123. Regelski, T. A. (2016). Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, & Theory for Music Education, 15(2), 10–45. Regelski, T. A. (2018). Curriculum traditions, music education, and the praxial alternative. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(1), 1–45.

104

5  Educator-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Schippers, H., & Campbell, P. S. (2012). Cultural diversity: Beyond ‘songs from every land.’ In Oxford handbook of music education, edited by G. E. McPherson and G. F. Welch, 87–104. : Oxford University Press. Schmidt, P., & Colwell, R. (2017). Introduction. In P. Schmidt & R. Colwell (Eds.), Policy and the political life of music education (pp. 1–8). Oxford University Press. Shaw, J.  T. (2016). The music I was meant to sing: Adolescent choral students’ perceptions of culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(1), 45–70. Smith, T. (2022). An ecofeminist vision of music education: Music making to heal the ecosocial web. Unpublished manuscript. Boston University. Tuinstra, B. (2019). Embracing identity: An examination of non-western music education practices in British Columbia. International Journal of Music Education, 37(2), 286–297. https://doi. org/10.1177/0255761419827359 Wong, D. (2018). Intercultural learning may be impossible in education abroad: A lesson from King Lear. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(3), 38–50. Wurzel, J. S. (2004). Toward multiculturalism. Intercultural Resource Corporation.

Chapter 6

Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Abstract As educators develop higher levels of intercultural sensitivity themselves, they will be much better equipped to help the students in their classrooms develop capacities in this area as well. Music teachers (along with teachers in all other subject areas) can use their emerging knowledge of the DMIS framework to identify and better understand the ways in which students of all ages experience and respond to cultural difference. Armed with this knowledge, they can design relevant learning experiences that will help the students in their classrooms overcome issues related to each stage, as they learn to look beyond themselves and recognize, accept, adapt to, and celebrate the human differences that exist all around them. Although the classroom-level suggestions presented within this chapter are “music specific”, they can be easily expanded and adapted to meet the needs of teachers and students in many other subject areas. Keywords  Music education · World music pedagogy · Aesthetics · Global mindset · Intercultural sensitivity · Adolescence

6.1 Introduction The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) provides a useful framework that teachers can use to create curriculum and sequence classroom activities in ways that facilitate students’ development towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993). This framework is empowering because it “assumes every child is capable of achieving growth” (Mellizo, 2019, p. 485). “Even when students initially react negatively to culturally-diverse music making opportunities, there are small, manageable steps that the music educator can take to help them progress through the continuum” (p. 485). However, it is important to remember that the success of educational initiatives based on the DMIS is directly dependent on the instructor’s own level of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 2004). In Chap. 5, I presented ideas for ways that individual music educators can use the DMIS framework to assess their own levels of © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_6

105

106

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

intercultural sensitivity and gain a better understanding of how their own cultural backgrounds, musical attachments, and personal preferences influence every interaction that occurs in the classroom. Music educators who actively work through the process of acknowledging and accepting their own innate cultural/musical biases and assumptions (which we all have) will stand a much better chance of positively influencing their students’ levels of intercultural sensitivity. Within this chapter, I move this conversation to the classroom level. First, I describe what each DMIS stage might “look like” in K–12 music classroom settings. Next, I consider how music educators can apply their emerging knowledge of the DMIS framework to design and facilitate developmentally appropriate learning experiences that might help students overcome common issues that arise at each stage and prompt movement towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity (ideally, ethnorelative worldviews). In a world that is increasingly defined by diversity, interconnectedness, and interdependence, all teachers in all subject areas “share the responsibility of ensuring today’s students (tomorrow’s citizens) develop the attitudes needed to understand and communicate with people from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds (global mindset)” (Mellizo, 2019, p. 485). And yet, I argue once again that “music education has unique potential in this area” (p. 486). “The active music making process that occurs in school music classrooms provides natural and meaningful opportunities for children and adolescents to engage with a variety of musical cultures, and over time, to experience them in increasingly complex ways” (p. 486).

6.2 Denial in the Music Classroom Within school music classrooms, “student” Denial most often occurs because culturally diverse music traditions/perspectives are simply not included in the curriculum (on a regular basis or sometimes, at all) and/or students do not encounter diverse musical sounds in their personal lives. A student who is experiencing Denial might make snap judgments about what is and what is not ‘music’ if they suddenly encounter musical sounds that are unfamiliar (e.g., tonalities, tuning systems, vocal timbres, instruments) (Mellizo, 2022).

6.2.1 Diversifying Content and Pedagogy Although it sounds simplistic, the best way for teachers to help their students overcome the major issue related Denial in the music classroom (noticing and confronting cultural difference) is to make intentional efforts to infuse culturally diverse musical content into the curriculum. Even when/if it feels forced or uncomfortable, individual music educators at all levels of the system should make conscious, persistent efforts to “make a broader perspective the norm” (Campbell, 2004, p. xvii) by

6.3  Defense in the Music Classroom

107

choosing musical repertoire that represents a broad cross-section (traditional, popular, and contemporary styles) of the musical diversity our world has to offer. Previous authors have argued that content diversification is particularly beneficial at younger ages (primary/elementary age students), due to a unique period of “open-earedness,” during which individuals are more receptive to and “open to different forms of music” (Henninger, 2018, p. 6). Regelski (2004) warned that “attitudes and values at the end of middle school usually continue into high school and adulthood” (p. 212) and therefore recommended introducing students to a diverse palette of musical sounds before their identities are fully formed (during childhood). These types of experiences are especially important for students who are geographically isolated from cultural difference and therefore might be predisposed to a Denial mindset because they have limited opportunities to interact with people they perceive to be culturally different, or encounter culturally diverse perspectives in their everyday lives (Mellizo, 2019). For these students, the music classroom might be one of the few places where they can experience diversity on a global level. I acknowledge mere “exposure” to cultural diversity through the medium of music will probably do very little in terms of fostering true cultural understanding or positive global dispositions. Many authors have already pointed out issues that can arise when music teachers interpret “multiculturalism” as content diversity alone, related to tokenism, exoticism, essentialism, othering, and stereotyping (Fung, 2002; Gonzalez Ben, 2018; Hess, 2013, 2018; Regelski, 2010). Matsunobu (2019) argued including culturally diverse music in certain ways (e.g., a lack of contextual information, “Westernized” recorded examples, and using culturally diverse examples to illustrate “Western” concepts) might actually lead to “cultural misunderstanding” (p. 49). Teachers can address some of these issues by diversifying their pedagogical strategies according to the music they choose, honoring how it is taught and learned in its original cultural setting, and using cultural-specific terminology (instead of analyzing all music through a Eurocentric, concept-based approach) (Mellizo, 2020). Although I recognize issues like tokenism, exoticism, essentialism, etc. are problematic (and will be addressed later in this chapter), I circle back to the developmental nature of the DMIS. As a first step, students who experience Denial must be “forced by some circumstance” (Bennett, 2017, p. 3) to become aware of cultural difference (e.g., a musical learning experience). In some cases, the resolution of this issue will lead students directly into the Minimization or Acceptance stages (Mellizo, 2019). In other cases, the acknowledgment of cultural differences will elicit a defensive reaction.

6.3 Defense in the Music Classroom Students who experience Defense in the music classroom have had exposure to and are therefore sufficiently aware of musical/cultural diversity but tend to respond in negative ways. During childhood and adolescence, student defensiveness is likely to

108

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

manifest as denigration (e.g., this is weird; this sounds bad; I don’t like this). In her 2018 study, Hess illustrated this type of scenario: Amanda, in particular, worked to reveal the structural oppression and racism out of which certain musics emerged. In response, students in Amanda’s class engaged in power plays by challenging the teacher—a typical classroom behavior. However, they challenged the teacher through the class material—Afrocentric repertoire. In some cases, students mocked the material to move up the class popularity hierarchy. They altered their singing voices to make others laugh and made snide comments about the music and often the performers as well. In observing, there was little question that students engaged in this behavior for reasons that did not relate to the material, but the effect remains. White students, looking to gain currency in the class hierarchy, mocked Afrocentric material for their own gain in classroom cultural capital. I noted students making fun of “strange” cultures, shouting on one occasion “Guantana-weirdo” across the room in reference to “Guantanamera”—a song they studied (pp. 138–139).

Whether the students in this class were reacting to the material itself or a perceived threat to their White privilege is irrelevant when viewed through the lens of intercultural sensitivity. For whatever reason, the students felt a strong sense of “us vs. them,” evidenced through derogatory comments and actions. Although this educator was admirably attempting to dismantle White privilege by choosing a broad range of music, this is a difficult (if not impossible task) if students have not yet accepted those who are culturally different as “fully human.” When musical defensiveness occurs, there are several steps music teachers can take to support and challenge the learners in their classrooms. Most importantly, students experiencing Defense must come to “recognize the ‘humanness’ of people who are culturally different” (Mellizo, 2019, pp.  484–485). Emphasizing music as universal human phenomenon can be an effective way to begin this process. Music education scholar Christopher Small (1998) argued musicking, which he defined as “tak[ing] part, in any capacity, in a musical performance” (p. 9) is something that people from every corner of the world do on a regular basis. In a similar way, renowned ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl (1995) stated, “A society has a music, or at least a principal music, that consists of a set of rules and principles that govern ideas about music, musical behavior, and musical sound and is comprised of a repertory of some degree of consistency and a hierarchy of central and peripheral phenomena” (p. 87). He continued, “this congruence of society and music is certainly an oversimplification and readily subject to criticism from several perspectives, but it is a point of departure.” Although I have previously argued (and will argue again later) that the “music is a universal language” point of view is problematic, from a developmental perspective, in some cases, it might be a necessary pitstop on an individual’s journey towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity.

6.3  Defense in the Music Classroom

109

6.3.1 Highlighting Human Commonalities Building from the notion of music as a universal human phenomenon, teachers can facilitate student movement beyond polarizing feelings/attitudes (an “us vs. them” mentality) by using music as a vehicle for highlighting human commonalities (rather than as a vehicle to identify and analyze differences). For example, an elementary music teacher could emphasize cultural values that all humans share (e.g., kindness, sharing, diligence, faith, courage, and hard work) through purposeful song selection or children’s literature integration. Teachers at all levels could organize songs drawn from a variety of different cultural settings into thematic units (or concert programs) based on the common ways in which people engage with music (e.g., entertainment, enjoyment, celebration, communication, emotional expression, physical response, teaching social norms, religious rituals, and preserving culture) (Campbell, 2010a). These types of activities can help students “establish commonality” (Bennett, 2004, p. 66) between themselves and people from different cultural groups. Regelski (2010) has contended this pluralistic approach to diversity also challenges essentialist assumptions that are common during the Denial and Minimization stages (e.g., the assumption that all music from a certain geographic region is homogeneous; the assumption of cultural knowledge based on ethnicity; the assumption that one song is particularly “authentic” or representative of an entire music culture, etc.).

6.3.2 Starting “Closer to Home” If teachers recognize their students are experiencing Defense (negative reactions to culturally unfamiliar music), they can also consider starting with music cultures that do not deviate as substantially from their musical realities. For example, certain musical instruments (e.g., steel pans or ukuleles) can serve as non-threatening entry points into the world of musically/culturally diverse learning experiences. These instruments (and many others) utilize familiar scales and chord progressions and they are fun and relatively easy to play. Regarding steel pans specifically, “the technique necessary to make a good sound is very simple” and “rote learning and music reading are considered equally valid educational methods” (Williams, 2008, p. 55). Therefore, all students can experience success right away. Regarding the ukulele, students can learn the chords and strumming patterns needed to play “real songs” in mere days (or even hours). The ukulele holds additional allure for adolescents due to its current status in pop culture, the abundance of tutorial videos available on YouTube, and the affordability of the instrument itself. Positive experiences with music traditions such as these (different … but not too different), can promote the development of skills, and more importantly, attitudes that will serve students well when they begin to branch out to music cultures that are less familiar.

110

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Teachers can also consider starting “closer to home” in a more literal way by bringing more local (place-based) music traditions into the classroom. Within every community there are music traditions that have a vibrant following in informal settings or culture-specific circles but are not usually included in school music programs or exist only on the margins of the curriculum (e.g., bluegrass, mariachi, country music, Basque dancing, blues, Native American drumming, just to name a few). It’s important to remember that it is not necessary to travel halfway around the world to encounter culturally diverse musical sounds and practices—musical diversity exists all around us—if we choose to see and acknowledge it. Schippers and Campbell (2012) pointed out, “The opportunities are around the corner, often a short bus ride away” (p. 100). In many cases, local musicians and/or culture bearers are also willing (and eager) to make in-person visits to classrooms to share their music traditions, stories, and life experiences with students (Campbell, 2004). These “place-based” educational experiences help “students deepen understandings and skills relative to their musical heritage” (Bates et al., 2020, p. 30). They “ground learners and validate their lived experience” (Gates, 2020, p. 20). “It (place-based education) takes cognizance of the material surroundings in which they can find refuge, where students can find safety and nourishment.” Eventually, these experiences can become the foundation for students’ “growth into the broader world” (p. 20).

6.3.3 Contextualizing Taking ample time to share contextual information about selected music cultures, and most importantly, the people who make this music within the original cultural setting (again, highlighting humanness and commonalities as much as possible) is another powerful way to alleviate defensiveness in the music classroom. At the very least, students should know “the time and place of the music’s origin, the rationale behind its acceptance as popular or artistic expression, or the role it plays in people’s lives” (Campbell, 2004, p.  217). As more contextual information is shared, students will likely discover many cross-curricular and personal connections. Returning to my previous examples, a unit on Trinidadian steel drums naturally opens the door to powerful cross-curricular connections related to social studies and geography. As students learn to play this instrument, they can also learn about how it was invented (young people experimenting with garbage!) and how people currently use it during an important cultural celebration (Carnival). Teachers can extend and deepen these connections by asking students to design their own instruments using recycled materials or having them make a list of other cultural celebrations that use music. Students who are learning to play the ukulele can simultaneously learn about how this instrument gained widespread popularity in Hawaii after several important monarchs expressed their fondness for it, and the ways in which it still functions as an important symbol of Hawaiian culture today—in Hawaii, on the North American continent, and in other places around the world. Most importantly,

6.4  Minimization in the Music Classroom

111

these discussions should always circle back to people, especially “the ways in which people make music meaningful and useful in their lives” (Wade, 2012, xvii). “Even within the context of secondary and university performance ensembles (such as band, choir, and orchestra), directors can facilitate movement through the DMIS continuum by incorporating diverse repertoire and sharing relevant cultural/contextual information about these selections in ways that emphasize commonalities instead of differences” (Mellizo, 2018, p. 57). Usually, music educators do not need to “reinvent the wheel” to add more contextualization to their lessons. The number of diverse, high-quality, comprehensive, and well-contextualized music education resources revealed by a simple Internet search always amazes me, and this number continues to grow with each passing year (Mellizo, 2020). In addition to facilitating students’ movement through the Defense stage, using materials that are culturally informed and well contextualized can help music educators “avoid over-simplification and misrepresentation of the music” (p.  62)—especially when they are diving into a music culture that is unfamiliar.

6.4 Minimization in the Music Classroom From a musical perspective, Minimization is characterized by the belief that “beautiful” and/or “meaningful” music is something that can be defined. Because their own experience of “music” is still central to their reality, students who experience Minimization probably view music as a “universal language,” through which everyone in the world can communicate and understand each other. These students probably consider themselves very “tolerant” of music and people from different cultural settings—they do not yet realize their tolerance exists mostly on a surface level. Students who experience Minimization will likely respond positively to music drawn from unfamiliar cultural settings if it is arranged in familiar/expected ways, perhaps with melodies, harmonies, and instruments with which they are familiar, or perhaps translated into their native language. However, they may fall back into a defensive position when they encounter more profound differences (e.g., songs in a language they perceive is difficult to pronounce, unfamiliar scales, chords and progressions that do not resolve in predictable ways; different perspectives of intonation; a lyrical message that conflicts with their core beliefs). At this stage, learners might demonstrate what Wong (2018) called “open-­ minded ignorance”–a virtue he argued should “be protected, rather than persecuted” because “experiences of ignorance are precisely the moments in which genuine learning can emerge” (p. 49). He added, “It takes courage to realize one’s ignorance in intercultural experiences, to take these experiences in, to be curious about how to be less ignorant, and finally, to think and behave differently” (p. 49). To move past Minimization, students must come to realize that music is not a universal

112

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

language—rather, it “consists of several languages that may have certain sounds in common” (Heinomen, 2012, p. 66).

6.4.1 Discerning Differences Music teachers (at all levels of the system) can help learners progress through the Minimization stage by providing opportunities for them to “notice” differences in non-threatening ways. Discussions at this stage should be relational (not hierarchical) (Hess, 2018) and centered around general/broad differences. More direct comparisons (especially those that imply value judgments) should still be avoided. This process can be a balancing act, but it is very important. Bennett (1993) warned that “excessive discussion of cultural differences in behavior or values (at this stage of development) may backfire, leading people toward more intense superiority or into a retreat to denigration” (p. 39). He argued, “the final state of ethnocentrism, minimization, must be passed before a strong emphasis on cultural difference will be effective” (p. 39). In Fig. 6.1, I share a pedagogical tool I sometimes use to facilitate these learning experiences and subsequent discussions, based on ideas brought forth by Bonnie

Fig. 6.1  This pedagogical tool uses ideas brought forth in Wade’s book, Thinking Musically, to help learners think about broad categories that are applicable across a wide variety of cultures. (Mellizo, 2019)

6.4  Minimization in the Music Classroom

113

Wade (2012) in her textbook, Thinking Musically. This tool uses “a set of unifying topics” (time, pitch, instruments, structure, meaning, use, and transmission) that apply to a wide variety of music traditions throughout the world (p. xvi). As students listen attentively for certain musical sounds while considering what the sounds mean to the people who make the music, they will naturally begin to think about ALL music (even musical selections/traditions with which they are already familiar) in relational instead of hierarchical ways (Hess, 2015a). This approach (which is not yet comparative in nature) reduces our natural human tendency to “judge” that which is unfamiliar, and places all music on an even playing field. As students move from a more ethnocentric to a more ethnorelative view of music, they can begin to use the categories provided on this listening template to identify similarities and differences that exist across cultural boundaries (comparisons). In addition to alleviating defensiveness, this relational approach “fosters student engagement with music and with issues of power related to music and also to capital” (p. 346). Over time, “students learn to think critically and reveal interrelationships and connections between musics, amongst themselves, and between themselves and the musics” (p. 346).

6.4.2 Developing Familiarity When students are experiencing Minimization, certain aspects of World Music Pedagogy (WMP) can help them develop more nuanced understandings of unfamiliar musical sounds (Roberts & Beegle, 2018). WMP is grounded by the idea that repeated listening is “the key ingredient to developing students’ musical insight, full comprehension, and ultimate expression” (Campbell, 2018, p. 109). In particular, attentive listening experiences (the first dimension of WMP) can help students “build an understanding of what is aurally there in the music” (p. 115). Attentive listening experiences focus on “‘big picture’ items, such as timbre (instruments and voices, and their nuances), texture, and the melodic and rhythmic components of the music” (p. 115). Howard and Kelley (2018) explained that during attentive listening experiences: The teachers should keep music examples limited to around 60 seconds or less, so that students can hone in on the musical material … For any given example, students should experience the musical example a minimum of five or six times, or as many as ten or more times. Attentive Listening episodes can be extended into multiple class meetings over several days, reviewing as well as listening anew to different aspects of the musical example. For successful Attentive Listening episodes, a teacher must have a clear understanding of the listening goals for the class (e.g., “What kinds of instruments are being played?”, “What is the meter for this section of music?”, “What text do you hear repeated?”). The teacher is the guide in the soundscape and must know the answers to the questions that she asks, as well as what new directions to take her students through deeper listening and understanding (pp. 25–26).

114

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Especially when students are experiencing Minimization, this in-depth study of one selected recording is preferable to a broad survey of global music cultures because it draws students more deeply into the musical experience (Howard & Kelley, 2018). Research indicates increased familiarity (which naturally occurs when students are prompted to repeatedly listen to the same excerpt from one recording) is related to higher levels of musical preference (McCoy, 2003). This preference (for a single musical selection) has been shown to transfer to untaught pieces of the same genre (Kang et al., 2022). Therefore, the benefits of using WMP in the music classroom (especially regarding the development of intercultural sensitivity) are twofold. Students develop more nuanced understandings of unfamiliar musical sounds (Bennett, 1993 called this becoming more “sensitive” to cultural differences) and begin to like them more.

6.5 Acceptance in the Music Classroom Students who have bridged the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism and experience Acceptance genuinely enjoy and value opportunities to engage with culturally diverse music traditions. They are open to new ways of learning music and are curious about the people who perform music in the original cultural setting. These students can also discern general similarities and differences between music traditions and discuss them in respectful and relational ways (without imposing judgement). To move even further in the DMIS continuum, students must achieve what Bennett (2004) referred to as “value relativity” (p. 69). Essentially, they must fully accept and embrace “their” music as just one of many viable and equally complex music traditions that exist in this world (Anderson & Campbell, 2010).

6.5.1 Music-Making When students are experiencing Acceptance, they need more opportunities for “practical application” (Bennett, 1993, p. 51). At this stage, teachers should prioritize active, participatory, collective music-making experiences as much as possible. More than learning about culturally diverse music, these students need opportunities to learn through it. Elliott (1990) has argued authentic opportunities to “participate in or make a music culture” (p. 158) can break down barriers of otherness, build bonds of humanness, and ultimately lead students of all ages towards deeper levels of musical and cultural understanding. Involving culture bearers (also referred to as tradition bearers, visiting artists, and heritage musicians) in the process (perhaps inviting them in to teach a song or lead a music-making experience) can “add a human dimension to the study of a musical culture that can be powerful for students and their teachers” (Howard & Kelley, 2018, p. 16). Campbell (2018) explained, “Culture bearers are valued for the musical knowledge and skills they bring, and for

6.5  Acceptance in the Music Classroom

115

their capacity to frame their songs, tunes, and rhythms with a cultural perspective that only they can have” (p. 143). Ilari et al. (2013) argued singing could function as a particularly powerful form of active musical engagement. They stated, “Singing is not only a powerful means of human communication, but is also an expression of lifestyles, values, and belief systems” (p.  203). “When exploring songs from different cultures, we are given opportunities to navigate into different worlds, as singing and learning are about putting oneself out there–as both receptive and giving” (p. 212). Previous research indicates active engagement through creating/composing and playing instruments can also lead to higher levels of cultural understanding (Edwards, 1998; Downton et al., 2012). In addition to promoting cultural understanding, active music making experiences can help students to discover for themselves cultural and musical subtleties in ways that cannot be fully conveyed through written staff notation or experienced through listening to audio recordings. Over time, students who take what they learn through repeated listening and apply it to “real life” performance situations become better musicians who are also more deeply informed (Campbell, 2004).

6.5.2 Re-framing “Good” Music and Music Education Music teachers can facilitate students’ development of value relativity by promoting a broader view of musical “goodness” in the classroom. Regelski (2002, 2016) offered alternative perspectives of “good music,” “good performances,” and “good music education.” He pushed back against the idea that certain musical selections (e.g., Western Art Music) were aesthetically more valuable than others, and argued “goodness” could only be judged in terms of what the music is “good for.” He explained, “trumpet fanfares are not ‘good for’ inducing a child to sleep; and most children’s lullabies are not ‘good for’ adult listening” (2016, p. 12). From a student performance perspective, Regelski (2016) has argued the extent to which a performance adds meaning to students’ lives and inspires future music participation is more important than technical precision. He contended a “good” music education was one that promoted “independent musicianship” and “personal musical relevance” (2002, p. 112). In other words, do the students possess the skills required for lifelong music participation (in the way(s) they want to participate) and the desire to put their skills into personal use after they graduate? Teachers should keep in mind that what is “good” for one student (who wants to become famous concert pianist) may not be “good” for another (who wants to sing in the church choir or play the guitar for personal enjoyment). Music teachers can put these ideas into practice in several ways. From a content perspective, they can aim to “strike a balance between traditional, popular, and contemporary musical content drawn from local, national, and global settings” (Mellizo, 2020, p. 60). They should also learn about and include music that the students in their classrooms know and value (Bates et al., 2020). Once the musical content has

116

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

been selected, music educators can investigate “norms and common expectations within the chosen music culture” (Mellizo, 2020, p.  60) and write culturally informed learning outcomes that reflect the unique “knowledge, skills, and disposition students will need to encounter this music in meaningful ways” (p. 60). This step addresses the hegemonic curricular tendency to conceptualize (and assess) student performance based on one (Westernized) perspective of music. Music teachers can also emphasize musical collaboration above competition (Jorgensen, 2003). Although it can be argued that competitions foster high performance standards and assess mastery, too many teachers prioritize getting “results” over the experience of the humans they are responsible for teaching (Powell, 2021). In contrast, collaboration, which Jorgensen (2003) has argued “constitutes the driving element of human interaction” (p. 28), can “break down value hierarchies and allow for a sharing of resources including instruments, equipment, rehearsal spaces, venues, and teachers” (Smith, 2022, p. 17). Smith illustrated what this might look like in the music classroom: Instead of competitive festivals, what about collaborative ones where resources and ideas are shared among those living within a bioregion? For example, perhaps students in a cluster of neighboring schools might work together to identify some issue or theme that is important to them. The theme might include something particular or unique about the region such as a type of music, food, or cultural tradition. In this case, the students could craft a collaborative marching band show with music, movement, and visuals that celebrate something that is treasured about the wider community. Students might partner with area businesses, community interest groups, or government organizations or leaders to fund the development, and to promote the performance, of the show. Such a collaboration could provide the opportunity for the students to learn what is valuable about their community— what they can feel proud of or good about. The focus would cease to be upon an invented value hierarchy and the comparison of those with and without resources or opportunities (pp. 16–17).

6.6 Adaptation/Integration in the Music Classroom As students move into the ethnorelative stages of Adaptation and Integration, they are motivated to develop musical skills in more than one music tradition. These students also demonstrate the ability to shift their frame of reference by adhering to culture-specific expectations and norms. As I explained in Chap. 5, individuals who experience Adaptation consciously initiate behavior changes, whereas for individuals who experience Integration, these skills have simply become part of who they authentically are. Although the Integration worldview is rare, I argue it can exist in K–12 music classrooms, in certain circumstances. In Chap. 5, I used Juliet Hess’s description of Sarah, a participant in her dissertation study to illustrate what an Integration worldview might look like in the music classroom. Likely due in large part to Sarah’s guidance as a bi-musical educator, the students in Sarah’s classroom also demonstrated ethnorelative worldviews (perhaps even Integration). Hess (2015b) observed, “In watching Sarah’s

6.6  Adaptation/Integration in the Music Classroom

117

students move from work on the Gamelan to studying Western music, it seemed as though the music was no longer “strange” or “exotic.” Rather, students seemed comfortable and even fluent in its language, not noticeably viewing it in any way as different from the everyday” (p. 83). Although “there is a danger of exoticism … in studying a broad range of musics” (p. 83), it appears that shifting musical perspectives had become “the norm” for the students in Sarah’s class––they no longer needed to consciously initiate worldview changes, because shifting musical perspectives had simply become a part of who they musically were. Children, adolescents, and young adults who reach this level of ethnorelativism have great potential to become cultural bridge builders among their peers as they continue to progress towards increasingly clarified, reflective, and positive global citizenship identifications.

6.6.1 Practice, Practice, Practice To support growth when students are exhibiting characteristics of Adaptation and Integration, music teachers should continue to provide opportunities for them to practice their ethnorelativism through active musical engagement, and over time, should widen this selection to include music that deviates more significantly from the students’ musical comfort zone. Teachers can challenge learners at this stage by utilizing different methods of transmission (depending on norms in the original cultural setting) and prompting them to think more deeply about sociocultural connections in the music. Secondary and university students who demonstrate ethnorelative worldviews can benefit greatly from short immersion experiences in alternative cultural/musical settings. As Campbell (2010b) asserted, “For music majors to develop a culturally sensitive perspective, first-hand interaction with culturally diverse populations has proven effective––perhaps even transformative” (p. 304). Several university music programs have already established unique partnerships with cultural communities to provide these types of experiences for pre-service music educators. As an example, the University of Washington facilitates a program called Music Alive! In this program, students have opportunities to embark upon day visits, overnight trips, and week-long residencies to the Yakima Valley, “where Yakama and Mexican-American families live side-by-side” (Campbell, 2010b. p.  304). During these experiences, they interact and make music with people who live there and observe the ways in which local values are reflected in the music. Campbell (2010b) reflected on the success of Music Alive!, noting many students who participated returned to the college classroom genuinely excited about “others’ music and musicians” (p.  306). Some of these students eventually went on to accept “teaching jobs in places beyond their own familiar and safe suburban environments to work with children and youth far from the mainstream” (p. 306). Emmanuel (2005) explored the effects of a cultural immersion experience at another major university in the United States. In this case, five music education

118

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

majors lived together for two weeks in an apartment in urban Detroit, Michigan and spent their days observing and teaching at a nearby primary school. Emmanuel found that the participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and perspectives shifted dramatically over the span of three weeks. At the end of the immersion, they were much more cognizant of their own personal biases and assumptions, and more appreciative of different cultural viewpoints. These cultural immersion programs (and others) can serve as models for other university music education departments. Although they were short in terms of duration, they were transformative (in some cases life-changing) for participants. Up-close, human encounters can demystify the unfamiliar and offer valuable opportunities for participants to identify similarities (both human and musical) and notice, accept, and feel positive about differences. These experiences also prompt learners to develop the coping strategies and skills needed to function in an alternative cultural setting. Pre-service teachers who develop these types of skills before entering the profession become the types of teachers who can ensure ALL students have access to musical learning experiences that move them from “who they musically are to all that they can musically become” (Campbell, 2010a, p. 273). Several studies have shown that short cultural immersion experiences can also be effective and transformative for children and adolescents, although more research is needed in this area. Duerden et al. (2018) found that a three-week cultural immersion experience in Cambodia “facilitated a process of reflection and growth with both short-term and potentially long-term impacts, thus potentially fostering the development of global citizenship among participating adolescents” (p.  23). The thirty American adolescent participants in this study were between 15 and 17 years of age. Jackson-Barrett and Lee-Hammond (2018) found that after participating in an outdoor cultural immersion experience that explored Aboriginal connectedness to land, Australian children’s “learning motivation was ignited and connected to the classroom” and their “involvement began to increase at school also” (p. 99). The students in this study (which included both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children) were 5 and 6 years of age.

6.6.2 Modeling Global Disposition As I noted in Chap. 2, key characteristics of ethnorelative worldviews and global disposition are very similar. Individuals who possess a global disposition are generally aware and accepting of their own and others’ cultural perspectives and engage in intercultural empathy and acts of altruism. In a similar way, students who embody ethnorelativism have developed a heightened level of cultural self-awareness and engage in perspective-taking. Individuals who reach the Adaptation and/or Integration stages have developed the skills and desire needed to serve as a bridge between cultures. Bennett (1993) reminds us that ethnorelativism is not the end of an individual’s journey toward higher levels of intercultural sensitivity … “further growth is always

6.7 Conclusion

119

possible” (p. 66). Teachers can promote this growth by modeling “bridge building” behavior in the music classroom. Some ideas include: • Modeling awareness of difference by including music from many culturally diverse settings in the curriculum. • Modeling curiosity about the world and its people by including relevant historical and cultural information–especially about people who make the music and find it meaningful and useful in its original cultural setting. • Modeling acceptance by embracing a variety of pedagogical approaches and methods of musical transmission. • Modeling appreciation by honoring and including students’ musical preferences and experiences in the classroom setting. • Modeling understanding by using terminology that has relevance in the music culture (instead of imposing Western terms and concepts on all music). • Modeling perspective-taking by providing ample opportunities for student to learn through music (engage in active music-making). • Modeling adaptability by embracing the role of “co-learner” in the classroom– building new knowledge and learning new skills alongside students. • Modeling ethical principles by emphasizing collaboration, de-emphasizing competition, and assessing student growth equitably and in ways that are informed by the unique indicators of quality that exist in each music culture.

6.7 Conclusion Armed with knowledge of Bennett’s DMIS framework, music educators have unique potential to cultivate their students emerging global dispositions. When students are experiencing Denial, educators should make intentional efforts to infuse culturally diverse musical content and pedagogical approaches into the curriculum. Students who are experiencing Defense must come to recognize the ‘humanness’ of people who are culturally different. To overcome the most common issue related to Minimization (assumption of universality) and bridge the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism, students must come to understand their own musical experiences and values as just one of many valid possibilities. Students who have developed an ethnorelative worldview (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration) are no longer threatened by musical/cultural difference and understand that music is not a universal language. These students demonstrate many attributes of a global disposition. They recognize, accept, and appreciate the ways in which music traditions differ based on their cultural setting and are curious about the world, its people, and their music. They understand diversity as a “necessary and preferable human condition” (Bennett, 1993, pp. 47–48). In these stages, educators can challenge learners by modeling ethnorelativism, providing opportunities for them build new knowledge and develop skills in multiple music cultures, and encouraging

120

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

them to engage in perspective-taking (consciously shifting intercultural worldviews and applying their news skills appropriately). The flow chart shown in Fig. 6.2 (which is not meant to be comprehensive) synthesizes the most important information from this chapter. It shows how certain behaviors relate to Bennett’s DMIS framework and suggests strategies that might be effective at each stage. This chart should not be interpreted rigidly, but rather as a set of ideas. As always, it is important to remember that the human experience is fluid and cannot be fully captured by bounded categories. Students will likely experience the DMIS stages as overlapping, and suggestions for growth at one stage might very well work at others. I encourage teachers to use this information as a guide to design developmentally appropriate learning experiences that will prompt students to recognize, accept, adapt to, and celebrate the human differences that exist all around them and inspire them to become transformative global citizens who will use their knowledge and skills to make our world a more just and humane place.

Fig. 6.2  Cultivating intercultural sensitivity and global mindset in the music classroom

References

121

References Anderson, W., & Campbell, P.  S. (Eds.). (2010). Multicultural perspectives in music education (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Education. Bates, V. C., Gossett, J. B., & Stimeling, T. (2020). Country music for diverse and inclusive classrooms. Music Educators Journal, 107(2), 28–34. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M.  J. (2017). Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y.  Kim (Ed.), International encyclopedia of intercultural development. Wiley. Campbell, P.  S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, experiencing culture. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2010a). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2010b). Music alive! In the Yakima valley. International Journal of Community Music, 3(2), 303–307. Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Downton, M.  P., Peppler, K.  A., Portowitz, A., & Bamberger, J. (2012). Composing pieces for peace: Using impromptu to build cross-cultural awareness. Visons of Research in Music Education, 20(6), 1–37. Duerden, M.  D., Layland, E., Petriello, M., Stronza, A., Dunn, M., & Adams, S. (2018). Understanding the unique nature of the adolescent study abroad experience. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 18–28. Edwards, K.  L. (1998). Multicultural music instruction in the elementary school: What can be cchieved? Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 62–82. Elliott, D. J. (1990). Music as culture: Toward a multicultural concept of arts education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 24(1), 147–166. Emmanuel, D. T. (2005). The effects of a music education immersion internship in a culturally diverse setting on the beliefs and attitudes of pre-service music teachers. International Journal of Music Education, 23(1), 49–62. Fung, C. V. (2002). Experiencing world musics in schools: From fundamental positions to strategic guidelines. In B.  Reimer (Ed.), World Musics and music education: Facing the issues (pp. 187–204). Rowman & Littlefield Education. Gates, J.  T. (2020). What does ‘global’ mean and why does that matter? TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2020(2), 18–36. Gonzalez Ben, A. (2018). Here is the other, coming/come in: An examination of Spain’s contemporary multicultural music education discourses. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 26(2), 118–138. Heinomen, M. (2012). Music education and global ethics: Educating citizens for the world. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 11(1), 62–80. Henninger, J. (2018). Research-to-resource: Effective incorporation of world music into the music classroom. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 37(1), 5–8. Hess, J. (2013). Performing tolerance and curriculum: The politics of self-congratulation, identity formation, and pedagogy in world music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(1), 66–91. Hess, J. (2015a). Decolonizing music education: Moving beyond tokenism. International Journal of Music Education, 33(3), 336–347. Hess, J. (2015b). Upping the ‘anti-’: The value of an anti-racist theoretical framework in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 62–92.

122

6  Classroom-Level Applications of the DMIS in Music Education

Hess, J. (2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. Howard, K., & Kelley, J. (2018). World music pedagogy, vol. iii: Secondary school innovations. Routledge. Ilari, B., Chen-Hafteck, L., & Crawford, L. (2013). Singing and cultural understanding: A music education perspective. International Journal of Music Education, 31(2), 202–216. Jackson-Barrett, E.  M., & Lee-Hammond, L. (2018). Strengthening identities and involvement of aboriginal children through learning on country. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 86–104. Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Indiana University Press. Kang, S., Fung, C. V., & Yoo, H. (2022). Preservice music teachers’ world music preference for taught pieces and its transfer to untaught pieces. Journal of Research in Music Education, Online First, 71, 1–20. Matsunobu, K. (2019). Intercultural understanding of music for Kyosei living: A case study on multicultural music education in an American primary school. In R. K. Gordon & T. Akutsu (Eds.), Cases on Kyosei practice in music education (pp. 49–64). IGI-Global. McCoy, C. L. (2003). A review of research on instructional approach and world music preference. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education, 22(Fall-Winter), 36–43. Mellizo, J. M. (2018). Applications of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) in music education. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(2), 46–67. Mellizo, J. M. (2019). Exploring the effect of music education on intercultural sensitivity in early adolescence: A mixed methods inquiry. Music Education Research, 21(5), 473–487. Mellizo, J.  M. (2020). Music education, curriculum design, and assessment: Imagining a more equitable approach. Music Educators Journal, 106(4), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432120917188 Mellizo, J. M. (in press). Breaking through barriers: Unleashing the potential of culturally informed performing in music classrooms. In Fostering intercultural sensitivity through performing, creating and responding to music. Conway Publications. Nettl, B. (1995). Heartland excursions: Ethnomusicological reflections on schools of music. University of Illinois Press. Powell, S.  R. (2021). Competition, ideology, and the one-dimensional music program. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 20(3), 19–43. Regelski, T. A. (2002). On “methodolatry” and music teaching as critical and reflective praxis. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 10(2), 102–123. Regelski, T.  A. (2004). Teaching music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. Oxford University Press. Regelski, T.  A. (2010). Culturalism, multi-culturalism, and multi-musical prosperity. Finnish Journal of Music Education, 13(1), 95–98. Regelski, T. A. (2016). Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, & Theory for Music Education, 15(2), 10–45. Roberts, J. C., & Beegle, A. C. (2018). World music pedagogy, vol. ii: Elementary music education. Routledge. Schippers, H., & Campbell, P. S. (2012). Cultural diversity: Beyond ‘songs from every land’. In G. E. McPherson & G. F. Welch (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music education (pp. 87–104). Oxford University Press. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Wesleyan University Press. Smith, T. (2022). An ecofeminist vision of music education: Music making to heal the ecosocial web. Unpublished manuscript. Boston University. Wade, B. C. (2012). Thinking musically (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Williams, K. (2008). Steel bands in American schools: What they are, what they do, and why they’re growing! Music Educators Journal, 94(4), 52–57. Wong, D. (2018). Intercultural learning may be impossible in education abroad: A lesson from King Lear. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30(3), 38–50.

Chapter 7

Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Abstract  Within this final chapter, I return to the idea that music education has unique and powerful potential to foster the type of disposition needed to thrive in a world that is becoming increasingly diverse, interconnected, and interdependent. Through a series of autoethnographic reflections (letters to myself), I synthesize the most important points brought forth in this book and illustrate how these ideas have shaped my professional identity as a music educator and transformed my ­underlying worldview and teaching practices. As educators, we can’t change the world or even the people in it, but we can provide an environment that cultivates and inspires growth and even transformation at times. Musical learning experiences provide authentic opportunities for people to celebrate human commonalities and respect differences. These experiences become even more powerful when placed within a developmental framework that conceptualizes growth as a series of small, developmental steps towards a larger goal: Cultivating global dispositions. Keywords  Music education · Global education · Autoethnography · Intercultural sensitivity · Vignette

7.1 Introduction Dear Reader, Thank you for sticking with me to the end of this book! I hope you have found at least some of it to be relevant and useful. In Chap. 1, I proposed music education as a powerful vehicle through which the goals of global education can be realized. In Chaps. 2 and 3, I explored ethnocentric tendencies that are alive and well in the field of music education, and unpacked a theoretical framework (Bennett’s DMIS), which I believe has great potential to help educators develop and assess the This chapter includes several short excerpts from “Applications of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) in Music Education,” by J. M. Mellizo, 2018, a journal article originally published in TOPICS for Music Education Praxis. The author retains copyright for the original article. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1_7

123

124

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

effectiveness of learning experiences intended to cultivate global disposition. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 were more practical in nature. I suggested some developmentally appropriate action steps that might bridge the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism in music education, from a systemic (Chap. 4), educator (Chap. 5), and classroom (Chap. 6) perspective. Within this final chapter, I return to the idea that musical learning experiences have unique and powerful potential to cultivate the type of global disposition needed to thrive in a world that is becoming increasingly diverse, interconnected, and interdependent—especially when they are conceptualized in a developmental way. Through a series of autoethnographic reflections, I will synthesize the most important points brought forth in this book and illustrate how these ideas have shaped my professional identity as a music educator and transformed my underlying worldview and teaching practices. As you read this final chapter, I encourage you to “release your imagination” and look at the world through my eyes (Greene, 1995), as you consider how some of the themes brought forth in this book might have relevance in your own professional life. I’ll see you when you reach the end, Jennifer Mellizo

7.1.1 Synthesizing through Story As I outlined my ideas for this book, it took me a long time to decide how I wanted to frame this final chapter. Among other ideas, I considered providing a visual framework that synthesized my recommendations for change at the systemic, individual educator, and classroom levels (Chaps. 4, 5, and 6). I also considered outlining a series of action steps teachers could follow to put these ideas into practice (or sample lesson plans). Ultimately, I decided to take a more open-ended approach. Throughout this book, I have returned to the idea that every individual moves toward higher levels of intercultural sensitivity in their own way and at their own pace. Although the DMIS stages are “scientifically defined”, “methodically arranged” and “very believable” on paper (Zafar et al., 2013, p. 569), human behavior rarely fits into such clear-cut categories. It seemed contradictory to argue the DMIS theory should not be used in a “one-size-fits-all” way, only to finish the book by proposing a “one-size-fits-all” framework or set of steps. Cain and Walden (2019) recommended using “snapshots of practice” (p. 8) to effectively help K–12 music educators imagine ways to apply new ideas to their own practice. They explained, “It is clear that teachers need exemplars of engaged practice to guide them: personal stories of resourceful and innovative educators who are negotiating ways to bring diverse musical experiences into their classrooms” (p. 5). Howard et al. (2014) also argued storytelling, as both art and an instructional pathway, can illuminate and expand the reach of new ideas and innovative practices in music education.

7.1 Introduction

125

Once I decided I wanted to use stories/scenarios/snapshots to help educators “imagine how things could be different and how such change might be accomplished” (Jorgensen, 2003, p. 61), I started to think about the type of stories I wanted to tell. I briefly considered presenting a set of hypothetical scenarios, but ultimately decided that “real” stories would be more believable and compelling. Although I have many ideas about how certain scenarios might “play out” in classrooms (and have presented some of these in previous chapters), I worried that my own implicit biases based on previous experiences might lead me to assumptions about which stories would be most relatable and relevant for other music educators. I also worried about whose stories I would be leaving out (or would not be able to realistically tell). And then it dawned on me. The only story I really know (truly, deeply, and honestly) is my own … so I decided to tell it. Reliving some of the stories featured in this chapter was harder than I initially thought it would be. Throughout the writing process, I experienced many moments of self-questioning and doubt. As Ellis (2004) reflected, “there’s the vulnerability of revealing yourself, not being able to take back what you’ve written or having any control over how readers interpret your story” (p. xviii). Recalling certain memories from my childhood was at times painful and reflecting on some of my pedagogical choices (especially early in my career, but also very recently) was at times embarrassing. In the end, however, I agree with Ellis (2004), who argued, “Autoethnography provides an avenue for doing something meaningful for yourself and the world” (p. xviii). I am proud of my commitment to continuous improvement (both personally and professionally), and my willingness to “let myself be vulnerable” (p. 138) in hopes that others might connect with and learn from my experiences.

7.1.2 About Autoethnography According to Janes (2021), autoethnography “draws upon the personal experiences, thoughts, and feelings of the researcher to illuminate, examine, and/or critique something about a particular sociocultural context of which the researcher is a part” (p. 85). As a methodology that draws from several qualitative traditions, autoethnography emphasizes “story and pivotal experiences in one’s life” (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022, p. 197) and “focuses on generalization within a single case extended over time” (Ellis, 2004, p. 29). In this chapter, I seek to better understand my own story within a larger cultural context (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Specifically, I explore my growth as a music educator in relation to the intercultural worldview orientations outlined in Bennett’s DMIS framework (2004, 2011). According to Smith, autoethnographic reflections “can be represented in numerous ways” (2017, p. 572). They can take the form of “short-stories, poetry, vignettes, and layered accounts” and can be “written, performed, visually communicated, produced digitally, and so on” (p.  572). Ellis explained that autoethnography can engage readers of research “in the same way that a novel engages readers in its plot” (2004, p. xx). I drew my inspiration for writing “letters to myself” from

126

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Janes (2021), who sought to “disrupt normative research practices and representational forms” by using “unique modes of inquiry and expression” (p. 85). Through a series of letters, she critically examined “cultural humility as a process for preparing music educators to think about, work, interact, and live with cultural multiplicity” (p. 88). For me, “the reflective, dialogic, interactive, and connective practice of letter writing” (p. 110) was therapeutic. Ellis (2004) argued the stories autoethnographic researchers write should be therapeutic. Like therapy, autoethnography requires “courage, self-insight, and an ability to articulate feelings” (p. 296). “It’s about gaining insight into who you are and others are and finding a way to be in the world that works for you” (p. 296). I understand letters from my “past self” as personal memory data (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022). I started by generating a “chronological listing of major events or experiences from [my] life that pertain[ed] to [my] research topic” (p. 199). Next, I described “the circumstances of these events” (p. 199), focusing on the “aspects of memory that reflected cultural values” (p. 200) about teaching and learning music (both mine and others’). According to Cooper and Lilyea (2022), personal memories should not be approached as “objective reality”, but rather “as an indication of what holds meaning for us about the topic we are exploring” (p. 199). They continued, “we can draw upon these memories with confidence as indicative of significant aspects of the experience.” Throughout the writing process, I addressed ethical issues associated with autoethnography by focusing on my own feelings and experiences (instead of using descriptive personal characterizations of other people) (Cooper & Lilyea, 2022). In certain cases, I avoided and/or changed identifiable information (Ellis, 2004). I understand responses from my “future self” as a form of data analysis. Specifically, I use my existing knowledge of the DMIS framework to explain (to both my past self and the reader) how pivotal experiences in my musical education (both as a student and teacher) relate to longstanding ethnocentric tendences in music education. I also explore how certain growth strategies proposed by Bennett (2004, 2011) helped me overcome issues related to DMIS stages as I progressed towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity myself. Finally, I consider how my own growth has empowered me to challenge systemic norms and plan/facilitate the types of musical learning experiences that foster my adolescent students’ emerging global dispositions.

7.2 Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself Dear Future Self, I love music class! I wish we had it every day. Before class, I run into the room to get there before everyone else so I can play Heart and Soul on the piano (my teacher doesn’t like it – but I do it anyway). My favorite part of class is when my

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

127

teacher plays the piano (she’s really good), and we get to request songs from the book to sing. My least favorite part is when she makes us put our heads down on our desks, close our eyes, and listen to classical music … how boring! I’d much rather be singing songs or playing games! Speaking of singing—have I mentioned it is so fun? It is seriously my favorite thing ever. I sing most of the day, actually … except at the dinner table (because my parents have asked me not to ☺). Last week, I went to see a high school musical play, Annie. It was amazing. The main character, Annie, has red hair, just like me. Now I know every word to every song (therefore everyone else around me does too because I sing them constantly, at the top of my lungs). Some of my friends say I’m not very good at singing, but I know that I am. When I grow up, I’m going to be a famous singer or actor in a Broadway musical. Your friend, Your Past Self (Age 7) Dear Past Self, I’m so glad you love music – it really is just one of those things that makes life better, isn’t it? You’ll be happy to know I still love the musical Annie—in fact, it was the first musical I directed when I became a music teacher. Just last week, my middle school choir students entertained me with their own version of Heart and Soul – I guess some things never change  — music teachers everywhere continue to be annoyed by their students’ obsession with this song ☺! I recently read an online blog post that said: “Millions of children who will never take music lessons may learn to play it (Heart and Soul) as a duet on the piano, sometimes rather badly, and it is ubiquitous to the extent that anyone who knows one part can usually find another person who can play the other part no matter where they go” (Aficionada, 2021). All kidding aside though—there are important reasons why this is exactly the type of music making experience we should be encouraging in formal music learning environments: It is social, fun, and flexible/adaptable (can be made easy or difficult), requires collaboration/teamwork, encourages aural learning, and teaches foundational musical skills (chords, a common chord progression, straight vs. swing, basic embellishing/improvising, etc.). These are all very good reasons to embrace this song (and others like it) in the music classroom. One of my important mentors once said, “Music emerges from children, and those of us privileged to have spent time in their company have heard it often. Music is on their minds and in their bodies” (Campbell, 2010, p. 216). If kids love a song … if it is meaningful for them … if they are actively engaged in the process of making and enjoying music …, who am I to tell them they are wrong? “Music is ‘good’ when it serves valued human needs” (Regelski, 2004, p. 22). If students are engaged, having fun, and learning, then the music is “good.” Thinking that some songs are objectively “better” or “more appropriate” than others for classroom and concert settings is a classic indicator of the DMIS  stage Bennett called Defense (1993, 2004) and a form of oppression in music education (Jorgensen, 2003). Music teachers would do well to embrace “the music children manifest” (Campbell, 2010, p. 216) as uniquely valuable, and use it frequently in the classroom setting.

128

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Speaking of content selection and Defense, many teachers have been conditioned to view Western classical music as “cosmopolitan,” “sophisticated,” and “civilizing,” and believe it is “the highest of all musical accomplishments world-­ wide” (Bates, 2014, p. 314). They therefore emphasize it heavily in the curriculum as “fine art” that should be immediately appreciated, even though it often has very little relevance to their students’ lives. If teachers want students to make personal connections to the music they introduce, they should always contextualize it. Students should learn about the people who make and enjoy it and have opportunities to actively engage with it in some way. This is true, even for Western classical music, which is often treated as ahistorical (Hess, 2013). Sometimes, music teachers fall into the trap of “teaching ‘good things’ in ‘bad’ ways” (e.g., regarding classical music, through silent listening), and unwittingly “turn students off to musicking for the future” (Regelski, 2004, p.  21). In my (now grown-up) opinion, Western classical music is incredibly beautiful and meaningful and should absolutely be emphasized as a music tradition “that exemplifies a host of powerful ideas and values worth preserving and loving” (Jorgensen, 2020, p. 135). It is unfortunate that so many students end up thinking they don’t like it (or that it is “boring”), based on the way it is commonly introduced in the school setting (through silent listening). One last piece of advice: Don’t listen to those who tell you that you are not a good singer. There is more than one way to be a good singer (thinking that beautiful singing is something that can be objectively defined is an indication of the stage Bennett called Minimization). At your age, the most important thing is that you love to sing. I happen to know a little secret about you … you’re going to practice a lot, and over time, you’ll get a lot better at singing (and everything else). This is such an exciting time in your life. Keep dreaming big! Love, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, Yesterday was a terrible day. I got my report card. I got really good grades in most areas (well, not “keeping your personal belongings in order” – because my desk is a mess!). But, in the one class I truly love, music, I got a C. A “C”!!! I didn’t even know you could get a C in music. The kid sitting next to me got a B, and he never even sings along during class! I was devastated. I cried most of the day and again when I got home last night. My mom went in to talk to my teacher this morning, who said, “A “C” is not bad – it’s just average … and that is what she is. Maybe she is right. Sorry this is so short, but I’m too upset to write anything else. Thanks for listening, Your Past Self (age 9) Dear Past Self, I’m so sorry this happened to you – and she is not right. Music teachers should remember that although assessment can provide valuable information about student progress, it can also do a lot of harm. The way that assessment is often carried out

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

129

in music education systems in general is quite ethnocentric, and sometimes, downright inequitable. It privileges certain types of students (e.g., those who have access to private lessons, have experience with certain types of music, adhere to certain performance norms, are familiar with certain transmission methods, etc.) and disadvantages others (e.g., those who can’t afford private lessons or instrument rentals, prefer different types of music and transmission methods, etc.). Music teachers can engage in more equitable assessment practices in a variety of ways. For example, they can incorporate music from a variety of cultural settings and assess student growth based on unique indicators of quality within each culture (instead of assessing all student growth based on Western classical performance conventions (related to tone quality, blend, vocal technique, intonation, audience etiquette, etc.) (Mellizo, 2020). They can also honor multiple methods of transmission (instead of placing written staff notation in a position of power) (Campbell, 2004; Regelski, 2004), and avoid universal applications of Eurocentric terminology that only relates to Western art music (e.g., analyzing music by identifying music elements such as form, texture, harmony, dynamics, etc.) (Mellizo, 2020). Thankfully, I know you will encounter music teachers who embrace these types of assessment practices in the future. For now: Keep your chin up and persevere! Sending lots of positive thoughts your way, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, Just a quick note to let you know that you were right … I am getting better! I even got a solo last week in choir. After my music teacher realized how much I cared about my grades in music, they’ve been much better (mostly “A’s”). I’m also taking private piano lessons now and I decided to join band, which has really improved my note-reading skills. Piano lessons are fun, although I don’t really like practicing the songs my teacher assigns. I like to practice – but only the songs I like and want to learn! Your friend, Your Past Self (age 12) Dear Past Self, Thanks for the update! It is so great that you are branching out into new musical experiences … congratulations on your solo in choir, and good luck in band! Regarding the piano lessons, your private teacher really does care about you and she’s doing what she thinks is right, based on her previous experiences and training in a system that historically values one very specific way of teaching and learning music. Teachers who were trained in systems characterized by Denial (many university music departments) often believe that there are certain songs that all students should learn and hesitate to deviate from that set of “standard” repertoire. Unfortunately, “when learners are unable to find meaning … they become unmotivated and disengaged from learning” (Lind & McCoy, 2016, p. 51). Since I have the

130

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

benefit of hindsight, I know that you will quit your formal piano lessons in a few years (although you will continue to practice “informally” … teaching yourself the music that you want to learn). At this point in your musical development, your piano teacher could have considered more culturally responsive practices, capitalizing on your musical interests as a way to inspire your continued participation (Lind & McCoy, 2016). Stay well, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, I’ll make this short because I’m really busy right now. Some exciting things are happening! I made the show choir at my high school this year and got another solo. I also continue to participate in band, although I don’t like it as much as choir. Before I forget—I wanted to share that our concert choir got a “I” (superior rating) at the district festival (performing Class A level music)! We were one of only two groups to achieve this honor. According to our director, we were much better than the other group that got a “I”. Our musical selections were much harder than theirs, our tone quality and intonation was more refined/mature, and our vowels were taller (and our outfits were better ☺). This performance definitely solidified our reputation as one of the “best” choir programs in the region. I’m looking forward to participating in four music classes next year: concert choir, show choir, concert band, and jazz band. Looking forward to my junior year, Your Past Self (age 16) Dear Past Self, Wow – lots of exciting things are happening indeed – congrats on your recent successes! I hesitate to bring this up because I don’t want to bring you down, but I’m a little troubled by some of the news you shared in your letter. It seems like you and your friends (and perhaps most importantly, your teacher) are placing a lot of stock in the results of these music competitions. It makes sense … especially considering this type of competition often serves as both a standardized test for students and a form of teacher evaluation (Powell, 2021). The stakes are high, and the process is “based upon premises that require that there are more losers than winners” (Smith, 2022, p. 6). I have lost track of the number of times I have heard colleagues degrade a festival’s legitimacy if too many ensembles receive “superiors.” Ironically, despite the great value given to music competitions, “higher scores do not always indicate greater levels of student learning (in fact, they may indicate the opposite)” (Powell, 2021, p. 22). The idea that a music program or music educator’s “success” can and should be achieved in relation to others is a longstanding defensive tendency in music education. Powell has argued this practice is both “self-sustaining and self-­ replicating” (p. 24). He explained: Teachers who have been successful within this competitive structure are appointed and elected to decision-making positions, so they work to maintain the status quo and suppress

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

131

alternative structures that might undermine the system within which they found their own success and rose to power and prestige (p. 24).

I’m also a little sad to hear that the notion of “technical difficulty” is shaping your perception of musical “success.” Again, this idea is somewhat elitist and defensive. Certain students are immediately placed at a disadvantage in this scenario because they attend smaller schools and/or have fewer resources (Smith, 2022). Don’t get me wrong … I’m very happy that your choir is performing difficult music at a high level. I just can’t help but wonder how the students in groups that got II’s or III’s (or played Class B or C level music) felt after this competition (and how it affected their future participation in music). Even if it is not the intent of ensemble directors or festival organizers, Smith (2022) argues these students quickly recognize their place within the music education hierarchy (at the bottom). I realize I’ve already gone on too long, but before I sign off, I’d like to give you a sneak peek into your future. Early in your career you will give others’ (i.e., the judges) subjective opinions of the quality of your students’ performances (i.e., numeric scores) a lot of power. As your career progresses, you will realize just how toxic this is—for you and your students. You will begin to understand that the “goodness” of a performance should be judged much more broadly. In addition to technical and expressive aspects, you will recognize that “how effectively the music (as selected, performed, and socially situated) meets the needs and conditions of the social circumstances that bring it into being” (Regelski, 2016, p. 20) should also be considered. In other words: Is the performance meaningful for the students? Are they having fun? Are they learning something? How much have they improved? Do they feel good about their performance? Does it add value to their lives in a more general sense? Does their perception of their performance change after they receive their score? Will their participation in this performance lead to their participation in more music-related activities (during school, but also after graduation)? Why or why not? To “support(s) the health and wellbeing of all educational stakeholders” (Smith, 2022, p.  15), you will begin to avoid competition-based festivals and/or choose the “comments only” option whenever possible (instead of receiving a score) because you want festivals to be learning experiences, not summative evaluations. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it won’t take long for your students (or their parents) to adapt to these new norms, and over time, you will build a healthier learning community that honors everyone’s gifts and strengths and promotes “sustainable learning and growth” (p. 15). Until next time, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, Although my senior year of high school had some ups and downs, it ended on a high note. I am going to college to become a music teacher! The application/audition process was a little scary and I’m still not sure if I made the right choice. I almost decided not to major in music at all after my high school choir teacher told me he just didn’t think I had good enough piano skills to be a music teacher. But I love

132

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

music and I love kids, and I just feel like it would be the perfect job for me, right? I applied to two programs. For one of my applications, I had to send in a taped audition to be considered for scholarships (the school was far away, and I couldn’t attend auditions in-person). My choir teacher didn’t really want to help me prepare, so I read over the audition requirements on my own and asked my band teacher to help me make the recording. I had to sing a song in another language for my audition, so I found a nice piece in German that fit my range and learned to pronounce the words on my own. I didn’t end up receiving any scholarship money from that music department (apparently because my tone quality was unrefined, my German was bad, and the sound quality of my recording was poor), but at least I got accepted into the program! The second application I submitted was to my state university (much bigger, but has a great reputation). In the end, I decided it wasn’t a good fit for me though. When I went for my in-person visit/audition, the members of the admission committee weren’t very nice. They seemed appalled that I couldn’t sing all the major scale on note names (my school music teachers didn’t focus on key signatures very much) and I felt like they were chuckling amongst themselves when I sang the German song. Anyway, maybe I was being overly sensitive, but I just had a really bad feeling after leaving that room. I want to go to a school where I feel accepted for who I am. So – I decided to attend the smaller of the two. It had much cozier “feel” and the people just seemed … nicer. Yes, it’s a little farther from home (1200 miles actually), but I think it will be a fun adventure! From, Your Past Self (age 18) Dear Past Self, Wow! Congratulations on your decision to become a music teacher and your acceptance into college! I’m here to tell you that you are making great choices ☺. Your initial impression of the university music department you chose was spot on. Over the next 4 years, you will have amazing opportunities to work with many kind, caring, knowledgeable, and skillful professors, who will take a genuine interest in your learning and become lifelong mentors. It was wrong of your high school music teacher to discourage you from majoring in music education based on your piano skills (which were actually pretty good at this time, believe it or not!). Try not to take it too personally. The assumption that piano skills are universal and required for success in the music classroom is unfortunately still widespread (and an indication of Minimization). In reality, many music teachers are very successful without advanced (or even beginner/intermediate level) piano skills— although it can be helpful to develop skills on some type of chordal instrument (maybe you should learn some chords on the guitar or ukulele). On a similar note—try not to worry too much about not knowing your key signatures yet. I bet (in fact, I know) that your written theory professor will make sure you master that before the end of your freshman year! It is important for you to know that mastering your key signatures (while helpful in some situations) is not universal musical knowledge and provides very little information about someone’s

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

133

potential to become a successful music educator (this assumption is another clear example of systemic Minimization). It is unfortunate that this skill was emphasized so much in your audition, and also that this requirement still often serves as a “screener” for college auditions, honor ensemble auditions, scholarship auditions, etc. (26 years after you had this experience). Speaking of scholarship money, first, let me say that I’m sorry you didn’t receive any from the music department your freshman year. That was a bummer and reading between the lines, I can tell it was a blow to your confidence. University music programs often have doorkeepers who are in charge of carefully upholding “the Law” (Allsup, 2016). Those who adhere to certain norms and conventions (e.g., knowing key signatures, correct pronunciations, sight-reading, “high quality” literature, memorization, desired tone quality, diction, attire, etc.) get to walk through the door, and those who don’t are left outside in the cold (Allsup, 2016; Koza, 2009). This type of “gatekeeping” is a telltale sign of a system that is stuck in Defense. That said, I encourage you to audition for a scholarship again next year, when your performance will be much more “refined” (hint, hint!). Because you are currently experiencing a certain level of Minimization, you do not fully recognize the privilege you possess as a member of the dominant class (in this case, White/middle class) (Bennett, 2004). Even though you didn’t receive a scholarship offer (and were treated in a condescending way at one of your auditions), you were still accepted into university music education programs (and your parents were able to help you pay for it). Many students who do not fit the mold because they haven’t taken private lessons, prefer or excel at other musical genres, or possess different types of musical knowledge and skills (often students of color and other marginalized populations) can’t even gain acceptance into these types of programs (Koza, 2009). This is really sad for a number of reasons (racial equity at the top of the list). From a music education perspective, this ethnocentric tendency is troubling “because colleges and universities (often) constitute the only available pipeline to K-12 music teaching” (p. 91). Within this self-perpetuating cycle, music pre-service teachers who graduate, when they get jobs, “in their desire to be good teachers, are likely to perpetuate a musical monolingualism that will foster a vast cultural divide between themselves and many of their students” (p. 88). Sorry for yet another lengthy response! Your Future Self Dear Future Self, It has been a long time since I last checked in, and I thought you might want to hear what I’ve been up to. I graduated from college with a degree in music education (yay!), I got a teaching job (double yay), got married, bought a house, and got a dog ☺. Last week, I finished my first year of teaching … which was amazing! (Waaayyy more ups than downs, which I’ve heard is rare). I really feel like my college degree program prepared me to be successful in my own K–sixth grade music classroom. In four short years I learned the ins and outs of music theory, took a WIDE variety of methods courses (I’m certified K–12, general music, band, choir, and orchestra),

134

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

studio voice lessons, several semesters of music history, and conducting (and probably more that I’m forgetting). I also got to participate in the concert choir and musical theatre ensemble. Believe it or not, I even passed my piano proficiency exam with flying colors (take that high school music teacher)! I also learned so much from my mentor teachers during my semester of student teaching. This year, I tried really hard to align my classroom curriculum with our new national, state, and district standards. Among other things, my students learned to proficiently sight-read melodies and rhythms, studied several important composers, and sang a variety of folk songs (I usually accompany them on guitar). They also learned about the elements of music, and we played Orff and other classroom instruments almost every day). Well–I guess that’s pretty much it for now. I promise I’ll write again soon! Sincerely, Your Past Self (age 23) Dear Past Self, I am proud of you. Just five short years ago, you were so full of self-doubt. And look at you now—a successful music teacher! It sounds like your teacher education program did an excellent job preparing you to succeed within existing music education structures. Unfortunately, however, it is important for you to know that existing music education structures often uphold one very specific “way” of teaching music, and therefore remain ethnocentric. Although I (you) will always remain thankful of the encouragement you received from the knowledgeable, high achieving, caring, and motivating professors you encountered in this program, I do wish that you had been forced to question your assumptions a little more. My favorite educational philosopher, Paulo  Freire (1970/1996), argued education should inspire people to liberate themselves … to “fight for their emancipation” (p. 67), instead of simply accepting the status quo. My challenge to you in the next few years is to do a little less complying (at least blindly complying) and a little more questioning. Surely teaching and learning music is not just about standards, pitch-matching, rhythmic recognition, dynamics, tempo, and Orff instruments? Freire reminded us that all “human activity consists of action and reflection” (p. 106). You’ve got the “action” part down! You have already proven you have the energy, content knowledge, classroom management skills, and love of music and children required to do this job well. However, self-reflection is also so important. Without it, we fall into a “banking” model of education, which assumes students are “receptacles” that “permit themselves to be filled” (p. 53). A continuous process of action and reflection (Freire called this “praxis”) will help you better understand “why” some practices privilege certain types of learners and “what” you can change to better meet the needs of the unique individuals who find themselves in your classroom each year. Be well, and please do check in again soon! Your Future Self

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

135

Dear Future Self, I had an unexpected and very uncomfortable encounter with a parent last week, and I need a little advice. First, a little context. Last week, we had the district choir festival. You know … the concert where every school choir in town sings one song by themselves (related to a theme) and then everyone sings a couple of songs altogether? The theme this year was “American folk music.” The final song that all the choirs sang together was a medley that included an excerpt from Pick a Bale of Cotton. I thought the concert went really well. In particular, my choir’s performance of Puff the Magic Dragon was well received by the audience and the students seemed really happy after the concert. The next morning when I arrived at school, a parent (of one of my only African American students) was waiting to talk to me. The first thing he said to me was, “I came to talk to you this morning because the district performance last night hurt my heart.” My own heart sank as I took a moment to digest his comment. What in the world was he talking about? Then, he elaborated. “Mrs. Mellizo …” he started. “It hurt my heart last night to see an entire gym full of White students laughing and smiling and dancing, while singing that song.” When he could tell I didn’t understand what he meant, he continued. “Pick a Bale of Cotton glorifies slavery in the way it is written. It pokes fun at the degrading conditions that enslaved Black people in our country had to endure when they were forced to work in the fields. It sounds happy, but it is not. Did you know that?” “Not really” I admitted. “I mean, I knew it was a work song … but … anyway, you need to know … I was not responsible for choosing the songs we all sang together last night. Someone else was in charge of that. But I am so, so sorry.” After a long pause, he responded, “Mrs. Mellizo, I think you are a good teacher, and my kids really like your class, so I don’t want to make a big deal of this. I also understand that you were not personally responsible for picking this song or choreographing it. But … you should have known that this type of performance … would be offensive to Black people, especially since there were only a couple of Black students in the choir. Please, just be a little more careful and sensitive, and look into these things more next time, okay?” I am absolutely mortified by the idea that this parent thinks I’m culturally insensitive at best (a racist at worst)! Ever since this conversation, I have been researching songs that have racist or culturally insensitive origins. It turns out that quite a few “go to” songs for my elementary music classes fit into this category: I’ve Been Workin’ on the Railroad, Five Little Monkeys, Camptown Races, Oh Susanna, Shortnin’ Bread—just to name a few. Why didn’t anyone ever tell me that? So … my main question for you is … What am I supposed to do now? Just stop teaching all of these songs? Just pretend they don’t exist? They’re just songs, right? And I loved singing them as a child … some of the songs contributed to my own love of music and singing as I was growing up, so aren’t they a part of my cultural heritage? I never thought of them as racist before … but I definitely don’t want to hurt anyone. In a way, it seems like an overreaction to take them out of the curriculum completely. I’d love to hear your perspective, Your Past Self (Age 25)

136

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Dear Past Self, Finally, you’re actually asking for my advice ☺! Yes, I remember the district choir festival—in fact, it is still alive and well. This type of event is a great way to prompt everyone involved (teachers, students … even parents and other audience members) to move beyond the DMIS stage that Bennett called Defense because it emphasizes collaboration and collective music making (instead of competition between schools). I’m not going to lie—you will revisit this conversation in your head many, many times over the years, and it will always haunt you a little. But I do want to commend you for taking these concerns seriously … you’d be surprised how many music teachers still don’t. The fact that you are even asking me this question indicates you are progressing towards higher levels of intercultural sensitivity. I’m going to answer your question to the best of my ability, at this moment in time. If you ask me this question again 5 years from now, I want to acknowledge that you might get a different answer. That’s one of the empowering things about Bennett’s DMIS theory … you never really “arrive” at the true and final answer. Even the end of the continuum is not the end of learning (1993). Bennett asks individuals to continue constructing “new continua that stretch in directions beyond our current vision” (p. 65). I’m going to answer by describing what you ultimately “did.” You did take end up taking these songs out of the curriculum, for the most part … and it hurt a little bit. You learned some of these songs from family members at a very young age and associated them with positive memories. It’s true, they were part of your music “culture.” In the end, however, you had to weigh these feelings of nostalgia with your desire to “do no harm” (Urbach, 2019). You had to admit that you had in fact already failed in that regard by not recognizing the harm this performance would do (to your student and her family and probably others) beforehand. Ultimately, you accepted that you made a mistake as you began to recognize that “we White teachers WILL make mistakes around the curricula we teach to our students when it comes to race, because we have been denied (by White Supremacy Culture) the opportunities, spaces, guidance and skills to discuss race/racism” (Urbach, 2019). You vowed to do better and encouraged others around you to do the same (with varying degrees of success). Because of this realization, you do still discuss these songs and their context at times (especially with older students), and sometimes you let the students decide which songs should and should not be performed. Just last year you stopped to discuss the history of the song Camptown Races with your 5th grade band students when it appeared in their method book. And the students, collectively, decided they no longer wished to play it. Bennett (2004) argued individuals who are bridging the gap between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism “may sincerely believe in equity while lacking the ability to act equitably” (p. 71). Since you’re asking for my advice, I think you are ready to engage in tough conversations about these issues. Over time, you will begin to develop a worldview structure that supports the type of action “that actually implements equity” (p. 71). Although you are far from perfect, you are making progress.

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

137

Warmly, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, Last summer, I decided to start a master’s degree in music education. Since it is designed for teachers, I can finish it over the span of several summers without having to take any time off from school. It has been a wonderful experience so far. My philosophy of education class opened my eyes to so many possibilities I had never even considered before. I also had an opportunity to do some training in the Dalcroze approach, which was interesting. It pushed me out of my comfort zone since it uses a fixed “do” system and emphasizes improvisation (which has never been a strength for me). Although I don’t think I will seek certification, I will definitely incorporate certain aspects of this approach into my teaching. So far, my favorite class has been “World Music.” This was my first experience learning about culturally diverse music traditions—I’m surprised I wasn’t required to take a course like this during my undergraduate program. Anyway, it was just so interesting. Each day we explored a new tradition … and we didn’t just read about it—we actually got to “do” it! We spent most of our class time playing music, making instruments, and learning from guest speakers (mostly culture bearers). After teaching for several years, I had forgotten how much I, myself, love to learn. Kind regards, Your Past Self (age 26) Dear Past Self, Your master’s program sounds great—I’m so happy it is opening your eyes to new possibilities and providing an opportunity for you to continue your own journey as a learner. Putting my theoretical cap on for a second, you are demonstrating many characteristics of the stage Bennett called Acceptance. You are curious about musical diversity, excited to learn more, and you are approaching new ideas about educational philosophy and pedagogy with an open mind. I’m also impressed with how your professor is approaching the survey course, intended to provide you with a sampling of music cultures from around the world. He tried to involve culture bearers in the learning process and prioritized active participation (instead of watching videos or reading about a music culture … although you did these things too). Learning by doing can be an important gateway to cultural understanding. Elliott (1990) argued to develop “insight into the meaning and use of a culture, students must be given opportunities to participate in or “live” a culture: to engage in the interplay of beliefs, actions, and outcomes that constitute a culture” (p. 150). My main advice for you right now is to continue walking down this path … soak up the knowledge that others around you have to offer and approach everything you do as a learner who will always be a work in progress. Thanks for checking in, Your Future Self

138

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Dear Future Self, I want to tell you about a music program my elementary students performed a couple of days ago called Todos a Bailar! Basically, it was a high-paced celebration of Latin sounds and rhythms. We packed a little bit of everything into our 30-minute performance: Colorful costumes and props, lively recorded accompaniment, and entertaining choreography. The kids had solos and speaking lines and were clearly having a ton of fun on the stage. Parents loved it and my principal was ecstatic. He said it was the best music program he had ever seen. After taking the world music class I told you about in my last letter, I was really excited to further diversify my classroom curriculum—which is why I chose this musical. Also—I teach several Spanish speakers, and I wanted to give them an opportunity to shine and share their culture. It was a fun night, but putting on an elementary musical is stressful and tiring … I’m happy that it is over and went well. Signing off for now, Your Past Self (age 28) Dear Past Self, Directing an elementary music program can be stressful, time-consuming, and tiring experience. Even when the final performance goes well, they take their toll on music educators. In one of my previous letters, I mentioned that a performance should be judged based on the value it adds to people’s lives (Regelski, 2016). The performance you described in your letter was very successful based on this criterion— it served a social purpose for community stakeholders and the students learned something and felt good about their performance (and will likely be excited for the next one). On the other hand, the “canned” music program you chose (and subsequent reaction from pretty much all stakeholder groups) is a textbook example of Minimization. The program itself reduced “Latin America” to a single entity and portrayed the “Latin” sound as an essentialized static object (Hess, 2013). The speaking lines emphasized similarities and downplayed differences (or celebrated them superficially). The song lyrics were teeming with stereotypes that were often misleading or untrue. You assumed your Spanish speaking students would immediately connect with this musical because the music sounded “Latin” and there were a few Spanish words sprinkled in here and there. Parents and school staff members got to view themselves as “tolerant subjects,” and happily accepted this opportunity to applaud the children “for their open-mindedness and willingness to explore and experience difference” (Hess, 2013, p. 85). Although the performance went well and was “successful” in certain ways, it was also problematic for some of these reasons (and others). Just some food for thought … Your Future Self

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

139

Dear Future Self, Since we last spoke, I had two babies! I love being a mother, but it has been hard to balance my new responsibilities with my teaching job. In addition to being exhausted, I’m just feeling pretty disillusioned with my professional life right now. Am I too young for a mid-life crisis ☺? I just keep wondering … is this all there is for me? How many more times can I teach “ti-ri ti-ri ti ti?” Don’t I have more to offer the world? I’ve taught the same songs and the same concepts so many times and I can’t help but wonder if what I’m doing even makes a difference. I just feel … stuck … and a little bored. In all honesty, I’m at a crossroads. For the first time, I’m not sure this is what I want to do for the rest of my life. Maybe it is time for me to explore some other interests. In particular, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to be a lawyer … not the type that stands up in court and defends criminals … but the type who does research behind the scenes, quietly supporting causes they believe in and working to eliminate some of the injustices that exist in our society. And full disclosure, beyond social justice issues, I also just want to challenge myself professionally … I want to know if I have what it takes to get through law school. Am I smart enough? Am I strong enough? I’m going to let you in on a little secret that nobody else knows about except my husband and my parents. I’ve been studying for a while now, and a couple of months ago, I took the LSAT. I got my results back today, and guess what? I got a pretty good score. I’m kind of on “cloud nine” about this right now. I mean, my score wasn’t “Harvard Law” high  – but probably high enough to get into some well  respected programs … maybe even with some scholarship money attached. So—I’ve got some pretty important decisions to make in the next several months. What do you think? Am I ready to take this leap of faith? Yours truly, Your Past Self (age 32) Dear Past Self, I wish I could be of more help, but this is a decision you need to make for yourself … at this moment in time. What I will tell you is that you are making a difference in your work as a music educator. I know that you are exhausted (for good reason), but please don’t diminish this important work. “Beyond the world of the music professionals, music often falls in stature among the subjects of a school curriculum” (Campbell, 2010, p. 233). And yet, you know deep down that music, unlike many school subjects, can give life joy and passion. It makes our lives deeper and richer. As Campbell (2010) stated, “All children, regardless of family resources (or lack thereof), deserve a chance to participate in music as skillful singers and players and to enjoy it as a unique outlet for their expression” (p. 235). And … every child deserves a caring, high energy, enthusiastic teacher to guide their musical journey. If you choose to stay in the field, it is your responsibility to see your own value and get “unstuck.” You do not need to teach the same songs, and the same things, in the same ways year after year after year. Branch out. Find music and stories that inspire you and share that with your students. Read more. Seek out opportunities to build new musical knowledge and learn new musical skills (Bennett (2011) has

140

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

recommended these types of experiences to challenge learners who are experiencing Acceptance, according to the DMIS). Look for issues of injustice that exist in your own classroom and work to change the system, from the bottom up … you don’t need a law degree to do that. I wish you the very best—no matter what you decide! Your Future Self Dear Future Self, Well, as you know, I didn’t go to law school. My family members convinced me that I had invested too much time and energy into the field of education to abandon it completely. So, I decided to pursue a PhD instead ☺. This was probably for the best. After all, I do really love kids (and music) … it was just a nagging sense of unfulfillment professionally that was bringing me down, I think. My local university doesn’t have a PhD program specifically in music education so I’m getting it in curriculum & instruction instead (but I still plan to make music my focus). Because the program is so close to my home, I can pursue my degree without having to take any time off from work. My PhD journey has been very interesting so far. During my first meeting with my advisor, she invited me to accompany her on a study abroad trip to Benin. At first, I thought, “No way! My kids are 5 and 3 … how can I possibly leave them to go on a multi-week West African adventure?” But my husband was super supportive and encouraged me to pursue this opportunity, so in the end I said yes. My learning experiences in Benin included daily music and dance lessons at a local school for the arts. Initially, I walked into that music classroom with my “Westernized” ears, determined to impress my teacher. I assumed that my extensive musical training in the United States would quickly translate into success in this new musical setting. During my first lesson, my teacher handed me an iron bell, and asked me to play a rhythm pattern as he improvised (at least it sounded like improvisation to me) on another drum. Much to my surprise at the time, I could not do it. As I tried again and again to play this rhythm on the bell, I felt very frustrated. I could not feel the beat–I could not count the rhythm–I could not transcribe the rhythm. Suffice it to say, my teacher was not impressed. Over time, I realized that if I wanted to experience any success at all in this new musical environment, I would need to open myself up to learning from a completely different perspective. I put away my transcription notebook and tried to learn the rhythms completely by ear, feeling them instead of counting them. Over time, I did begin to experience this new music tradition in increasingly complex ways. Although I never really got “good” at it, I forged my own personal connection with the music, and my fellow music-­ makers. I plan to stay in contact with Beninese musicians, teachers, and friends, and I hope we be able to collaborate again in the future. Until next time, Your Past Self (age 35)

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

141

Dear Past Self, Wow! It sounds like you experienced just about every stage in Bennett’s DMIS while you were in Benin! After some initial defensive feelings, you accepted that your previous musical training was not going to translate into success in this new musical environment and were willing to “change your approach” and developed some new skills that helped you adapt. You didn’t spend enough time in Benin to experience Integration. But that’s okay. According to Bennett’s work, Integration “does not represent a significant improvement in intercultural competence. Rather, it describes a fundamental shift in one’s definition of cultural identity” (Bennett, 2004, p. 72). Most often, people start moving towards the Integration stage after spending an extended amount of time in an alternative cultural setting. This is just the beginning of your PhD journey, and I can’t wait to hear about other adventures you will have along the way. Best regards, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, I started a steel drum ensemble at my school this year. I’ve been reading a lot about culturally responsive teaching lately, and initially, I was trying to find a way to connect with an individual student, who had recently moved to my community from Trinidad. He did not want to play a traditional band or orchestra instrument, but I found out he really enjoyed playing steel pans–and had been quite successful in doing so when he lived in Trinidad. I started looking into buying some steel pans for my classroom and discovered that they are really expensive! So … I found some student models that I could afford with my limited classroom budget (I was able to purchase ten). These instruments only have the notes for a diatonic scale (so you can only play in one key), but the sound is surprisingly good. Our ensemble meets for an hour on Fridays during an elective block, and sometimes after school. I am here to tell you that this was the Best. Decision. Of. My. Life. The nine students in this group are having so much fun and are getting so good! They are all super-motivated and already better than me. On a whim, I decided to send in an audition tape to be considered for the “featured student performing ensemble” at the Opening Night Concert for our state’s All-State Music Festival. And guess what? We were chosen!!! What an exhilarating experience for both me and the students. This is a big event, so it was also HUGE exposure for our school and our group! I can’t even begin to describe how it felt to be out there on that stage (at a great venue), performing with my students under the lights in front of an audience comprised of at least a thousand people (including HUNDREDS of the best high school musicians in the state). We got a standing ovation (it turns out, people really love steel drums!) I’m getting goosebumps just thinking about it … even though I’m writing this letter to you several days later. Cheers! Your Past Self (age 36)

142

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Dear Past Self, First, I just want to say, “how cool!” That was such a great experience, from a number of perspectives. Your students will never forget how it felt to sit in that green room waiting to go out onto the stage, surrounded by signed photographs of famous musicians who had also performed at that venue, like Wynton Marsalis, Willie Nelson, and The Beach Boys. They really did feel like rock stars, and I bet they’ll remember this experience for the rest of their lives. You also provided your student from Trinidad with an amazing opportunity to shine. He was struggling to find a community in a new school in that moment in time, and you should be proud of your efforts to help him connect with his classmates in a meaningful way. The following year, your student returned to school after spending the summer in Trinidad with a carefully saran-wrapped tenor steel pan that his mother purchased for him. When he finally returned to Trinidad for good at the end of the year, he left this instrument in your classroom as a gift to the school. This experience also had many social and global benefits for the other students in the ensemble as well. Bennett (2011) argued that especially when learners are experiencing Acceptance and/or Adaptation, they should have ample opportunities to practice their skills in real life situations. In a similar way, Elliott (1990) advocated for active, hands-on music-making experiences to foster higher levels of cultural and musical understanding. At the same time, I think it is important for you to remember to practice constant vigilance! In that culminating concert, you performed alongside your students (breaking down hierarchical performing ensemble stereotypes), but with a head full of tiny braids (after recently returning from a second trip to Benin, where you had them done). On that night, you didn’t give this choice a second thought (although you now recognize it as a combination of cultural appropriation and exoticism) … you felt like you “looked” the part. Additionally, your core repertoire, while super fun, included stereotypical “standards” (e.g., Banana Boat Song, Margaritaville, Day-O), and you thought it would be a good idea to buy your group members “Caribbean-themed” shirts to perform in (even though your student told you this is not what people usually wear when they perform in Trinidad … unless they are on a cruise ship). Although these types of “stumbling blocks” (Hess, 2018, p. 136) do not negate the positive aspects of this experience, it is possible to slip into more ethnocentric conceptualizations of diversity if you are not careful. Keep moving forward! Your Future Self Dear Future Self, You can call me “Dr.” now because I finished my PhD ☺! It’s funny—when I started my degree program, I really believed I was beginning a journey that would culminate with my exit from K–12 education and a job in higher ed. However, now feel like I’ve regained my sense of purpose as a music educator and I’m not sure if I’m ready to leave my K–8 classroom. I now see my role less in terms of being an “expert” and more in terms of being a “co-learner.” I have lots of new ideas about “what” to teach and “how” to teach it. I really try to meet my students where they

7.2  Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism, and Everything in Between: Letters to Myself

143

are when they enter my classroom. I want to learn about their interests, dreams, and goals, and use those as a springboard to help them grow, both as musicians and people. I try to approach each day as an unpredictable musical adventure, which helps keep things exciting and new, for both me and my students. Even though I’m done with my formal, degree-seeking educational experience, I’m still fascinated with global music traditions. I’m going to indulge my interest in this topic by taking a course in world music pedagogy this summer. I’m excited to learn about different culturally diverse music traditions and how to include them in the curriculum in sensitive and ethical ways. From, Your Past Self (age 39) Dear “Dr.” Past Self ☺, It is great to hear that even though you are finished with your PhD, you are still committed to lifelong learning. People who experience Adaptation (which seems to be where you are right now in terms of intercultural worldview) can challenge themselves by developing skills that will allow them to apply their theoretical ethnorelativism more concretely, in ways that are personally relevant and useful (Mellizo, 2018). I’m sure that your training in world music pedagogy (WMP) will help you cultivate your students’ cultural understanding through musical involvement in the coming years. WMP is versatile—it is applicable across a broad spectrum of music cultures, a broad spectrum of age groups, and a broad spectrum of subject areas (general music, band, choir, orchestra … even beyond the music classroom). Together, the five dimensions of WMP (attentive listening, engaged listening, enactive listening, creating, and integrating) offer “a meaningful avenue to the broader development of musical knowledge, skills, and values, and as well as to the development of student sensitivities to the musicians and cultures in which the music is alive and very well indeed” (Campbell, 2018, p. 128). Best of luck to you as you enter a new phase of life, Your Future Self Dear Future Self, It’s been a while, so I’m just checking in. There have been some new developments in my professional life, although I remain pretty much on the same path. I’m still a full-time K–8 8th music teacher. After taking the World Music Pedagogy course, I became obsessed with a new music tradition: Zimbabwean-style marimbas. They are so fun to play and have a such an interesting history! So naturally, I had to have one for my classroom ☺. One turned into two, which turned into a full set … and yes, we now have a full-fledged Zim-marimba ensemble at my school. By now, my students are used to my changing musical interests, asking questions like, “Dr. Mellizo, what new instruments are we going to play next year?” I’ve found that my students become even more excited about the music they are learning about when they have opportunities to learn about its history and the people who make it, in its original cultural setting.

144

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Last year, I had an opportunity to travel to Spain on a Fulbright scholarship to study music and culture, and work with a scholar there who is also interested in how global mindset can be fostered through music education. In an increasingly globalized world, international collaborations are becoming increasingly important. “The sharing of ideas and comparison of educational strategies and policies across national borders can lead to more complex understandings of similar problems” (Mellizo & Cabedo Mas, 2022, p. 5). When I get a spare moment, I also love to write curriculum resources about culturally diverse music traditions. I believe it is important for practicing teachers, who often have very limited time for lesson planning and preparation, to have access to ready-made educational materials that are culturally diverse, sensitive, and informed. The research I need to do to write these lessons feeds my need for continuous learning and helps me feel like I am acting on my values regarding music teaching and learning. It’s interesting … sometimes I feel like the work I’m trying to do is respected more on a national, and even international level more than it is in my own local educational community. Don’t get me wrong—no one is outwardly hostile towards my ideas, but in a way, the silence is just as telling as the criticism would be. As always, thanks for listening, Your Past Self (age 43) Dear Past Self, Well, it’s only been a year since I was where you are now, so I don’t have much specific feedback to share. Instead, I’d like to provide some general words of support, encouragement, and hope. Like everyone else, you have experienced (and will continue to experience) success and failure. Sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong. I truly believe you are generally moving in the right direction, but the journey you are on will not be straightforward. I encourage you to press forward with a mix of confidence and uncertainty (Hess, 2021). It is important to accept and embrace the fact that you do not (and will never) know all there is to know—about music, music education, or anything else. A pedagogy of uncertainty “leaves space for the dynamic nature of humanity” (Hess, 2021, p. 20) and opens a gateway to your own continued personal and professional growth. All the best, Your Future Self_____________________________________________________

7.3 Closing Thoughts In this chapter, I used “letters to myself” to explore my own story as a music educator who has experienced ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism, and everything in between. My own musical experiences as a student in the American public school system (Kindergarten through my undergraduate degree) were generally positive, but deeply influenced by the mainstream Western perspective of music education

7.3  Closing Thoughts

145

(Denial)—a perspective that informed and shaped my teaching practices during the early part of my career. Although I, myself, didn’t spend too much of my time in the Defense stage, this worldview has had a profound effect on my own musical education and teaching career (e.g., songs I learned, perceptions of success, scholarship money, acceptance from “gatekeepers”, focus on competition, etc.). As I became more “wide awake” (Greene, 1995) to the cultural and musical diversity around me (globally and locally), I experienced Minimization, engaging in a variety of tokenistic practices that reinforced stereotypes and did little to foster true cultural understanding. I also engaged in frequent self-congratulation, upholding myself as a “tolerant subject,” and patting myself on the back for my “openmindedness and willingness to explore and experience difference,” without engaging with “the underlying hegemonic power relations that maintain the status quo” (Hess, 2013, p. 85). I believe my experiences in Benin catapulted me into what Bennett (2004, 2011) called Acceptance. When I arrived in Benin, I thought my previous musical training and experiences would translate into immediate success (which did not happen). In hindsight, I am thankful that I didn’t experience much success in that musical setting (at least from a technical performance perspective). Instead, I was “forced” to recognize that my own musical training and experiences were not universal, and I began to “place more of [my] behavior in a cultural context” (Bennett, 1993, p. 45). This encounter piqued my curiosity about global music traditions and inspired me to seek out more professional development opportunities in that area. Presently, I spend most of my time experiencing music and music education from an Adaptation perspective. Among many other considerations, I try to respect my students as co-learners who bring their own set of experiences, expectations, wants, and needs to the table (Lind & McCoy, 2016). I reflect on my own cultural assumptions and biases related to issues such as repertoire selection, teaching strategies, communication style, assessment practices, and general ways of being, and consider who they affect the musical education of the students in my classroom. I often try to engage in “small acts of subversion” (Kratus, 2014), gently challenging norms related to performance ensemble hierarchies, competition-based paradigms, course offerings, and grading practices (okay, sometimes not that gently). Over time, I believe I have transformed from a teacher who cultivated a meaningful musical learning environment for some students into a music teacher who cultivates a meaningful musical learning environment for most (always working towards all) students. As I have mentioned previously, I’ll probably never experience Integration from a musical perspective. I do not consider myself bi-cultural or bi-musical (Palmer, 1994). I simply do not have advanced knowledge and/or skills in an alternative music culture (nor the time to develop them, at least at this point in my life). Therefore, I must consciously initiate shifts in my thinking as I navigate between musical perspectives in the classroom (e.g., transmission, pedagogical, and performance norms, terminology, unique indicators of quality, etc.). However, I do believe I’ve experienced certain aspects of Integration in my professional life as a teacher. Bennett (2004) described the experience of Integration as existing “at the margins

146

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

of two or more cultures (p. 72). Early in my career, I was what you might call an “up-and-comer” in the local/regional music education scene. I assumed leadership responsibilities within branches of professional organizations and attended Orff workshops. My secondary performance ensembles received awards at competitions/ festivals, and I was invited to serve as a guest clinician for “honor” groups. As my practices drifted farther and farther from the “mainstream,” I became more and more detached from this world. Although I maintain a positive rapport with many of my local colleagues, I’m definitely not a member of the “inner circle.” Over the past several years, I’ve also developed a positive rapport with other music education academics from around the United States (and beyond), with whom I share a common vision and values about what it means to teach and learn music in a diverse, globalized world. And yet, I don’t consider myself part of that “inner circle” either. As a practicing K–8 educator who has not yet made the shift to the world of academia, I’m a bit of an anomaly. Although my ideas and experiences are respected and valued, I do not share certain fundamental experiences with members of this community (e.g., publishing requirements, grant writing, the journey towards tenure, etc.). Therefore, I exist on the margins of both cultural groups (mainstream K–12 music educators and culturally sensitive music education academics). At times, I’ve been able to successfully serve as a bridge between these worlds (Bennett, 2004). For example, I present workshops on culturally diverse musical practices to local music educators and publish academic papers about my classroom experiences in professional journals. On many occasions, however, I’ve found Integration a rather lonely place to be, since I never really feel like I’m “at home” (Bennett, 2011, p. 11).

7.4 Conclusion Dear Reader, Although everyone’s journey is different, I truly hope my personal reflections will be useful as you imagine how you might be able to put some of the ideas I have presented in this book into practice. Whether these findings are generalizable depends on the extent to which these stories “speak to [you] about [your] experience or about the lives of others [you] know” (Ellis, 2004, p. 194). More than anything, I wrote this chapter to help you to understand that I accept the explanatory power of the DMIS model because I have personally experienced it. I accept the primary assumption of the DMIS—“that contact with cultural difference generates pressure for change in one’s worldview” (Bennett, 2004, p. 75)—because in my case, it did. I accept Bennett’s suggestions (2011) regarding action steps educators can take to challenge and support learners at different stages of development, because for me, they worked. Before I say goodbye, I’d like to return to the ideas of influential educational philosopher, Paulo Freire, who once said, “No one is born fully-formed: it is through self-experience in the world that we become what we are”. “Consuming the ideas of

References

147

others” does not lead to meaningful, sustainable change. People, “producing and acting upon their own ideas … must constitute that process” (Freire, 1970/1996, p. 89). As educators, we probably can’t change the world or even the people in it, but we can provide an environment that cultivates and inspires growth and even transformation at times. At its core, music is about relationships between people (Gaztambide-Fernández, 2020). Musical learning experiences can “prepare people to care for and about the music, respect and care for the musical traditions of others, and reshape them where necessary” (Jorgensen, 2003, p. 144). They provide authentic opportunities for people to celebrate human commonalities and respect differences. At least in some ways, musical learning environments “are models and metaphors of what school communities can become” (Jorgensen, 2003, p.  73). These experiences become more powerful when placed within a framework that conceptualizes growth as a series of small, developmental steps towards a larger goal: Cultivating global dispositions. Students who develop global dispositions become citizens who will “look through multiple perspectives … build bridges among themselves” (Greene, 1995, p. 167), and “choose to engage in cooperative or collective action in order to bring about societal repairs” (p. 66). Although “music” is not be the final destination on this journey, it might be a very powerful place to start. Kind regards and best wishes, Jennifer Mellizo

References Aficionada. (2021, December 10). Teaching the “heart and soul” duet in traditional piano lessons. Spinditty. https://spinditty.com/learning/Heart-­and-­Soul-­in-­Traditional-­Piano-­Lessons Allsup, R. E. (2016). Remixing the classroom: Toward an open philosophy of music education. Indiana University Press. Bates, V.  C. (2014). Rethinking cosmopolitanism in music education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 13(1), 310–327. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. Michael Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2004). From ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. In J. S. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward multiculturalism (pp. 62–78). Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, M. J. (2011). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. IDRInstitute. Retrieved from: http://www.idrinstitute.org Cain, M., & Walden, J. (2019). Musical diversity in the classroom: Ingenuity and integrity in sound exploration. British Journal of Music Education, 36(1), 5–19. Campbell, P.  S. (2004). Teaching music globally: Experiencing music, experiencing culture. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P. S. (2010). Songs in their heads: Music and its meaning in children’s lives. Oxford University Press. Campbell, P.  S. (2018). Music, education, and diversity: Building cultures and communities. Teachers College Press. Cooper, R., & Lilyea, B. V. (2022). I’m interested in autoethnography, but how do I do it. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 197–208.

148

7  Music Education as Global Education: An Autoethnographic Reflection

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE publications. Elliott, D. J. (1990). Music as culture: Toward a multicultural concept of arts education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 24(1), 147–166. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. AltaMira Press. Freire, P. (1970/1996). The pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books. Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2020). The orders of cultural production. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 35(3), 1–27. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Hess, J. (2013). Performing tolerance and curriculum: The politics of self-congratulation, identity formation, and pedagogy in world music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 21(1), 66–91. Hess, J. (2018). Troubling whiteness: Music education and the “messiness” of equity work. International Journal of Music Education, 36(2), 128–144. Hess, J. (2021). Cultural competence or the mapping of racialized space: Cartographies of music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 227, 7–28. Howard, K., Swanson, M., & Campbell, P. S. (2014). The diversification of music teacher education: Six vignettes from a movement in progress. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 26–37. Janes, H. (2021). Cultural humility in music teacher education: A virtuous vice, a vicious virtue. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 20(1), 84–120. Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming music education. Indiana University Press. Jorgensen, E. R. (2020). To love or not to love (western classical music): That is the question (for music educators). Philosophy of Music Education Review, 28(2), 128–144. Koza, J. E. (2009). Listening for whiteness: Hearing racial politics in undergraduate school music. In T.  A. Regelski & J.  T. Gates (Eds.), Music education for changing times (pp.  83–95). Springer. Kratus, J. (2014). The role of subversion in changing music education. In C. Randles (Ed.), Music education: Navigating the future (pp. 340–346). Routledge. Lind, V.  L., & McCoy, C.  L. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge. Mellizo, J. M. (2018). Applications of the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) in music education. TOPICS for Music Education Praxis, 2018(2), 46–67. Mellizo, J.  M. (2020). Music education, curriculum design, and assessment: Imagining a more equitable approach. Music Educators Journal, 106(4), 57–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/0027432120917188 Mellizo, J., & Cabedo Mas, A. (2022). Global mindset and music education: A comparison of curriculum documents in the United States and Spain. Arts Education and Policy Review. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2022.2070887 Palmer, A. (1994). On cross-cultural music education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 4(1), 19–24. Powell, S.  R. (2021). Competition, ideology, and the one-dimensional music program. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 20(3), 19–43. Regelski, T.  A. (2004). Teaching music in grades 4–8: A musicianship approach. Oxford University Press. Regelski, T. A. (2016). Music, music education, and institutional ideology: A praxial philosophy of musical sociality. Action, Criticism, & Theory for Music Education, 15(2), 10–45. Smith, J. (2017). Narrative inquiry and autoethnography. In M. Silk, D. Andrews, & H. Thorpe (Eds.), Handbook of physical cultural studies (pp. 570–581). Routledge. Smith, T. (2022). An ecofeminist vision of music education: Music making to heal the ecosocial web. Unpublished manuscript. Boston University.

References

149

Urbach, M. (2019, August 14). “You might be left with silence when you’re done”; The white fear of taking racist songs out of music education. Medium. https://medium.com/@martinurbach/ you-­might-­be-­left-­with-­silence-­when-­youre-­done-­the-­white-­fear-­of-­taking-­racist-­songs-­out-­ of-­89ecdc300ee5 Zafar, S., Sandhu, S.  Z., & Khan, Z.  A. (2013). A critical analysis of ‘developing intercultural competence in the language classroom’ by Bennett, Bennett and Allen. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(4), 565–571.

Index

A Admission practices, 77, 85 Aesthetic Philosophy west is best, 65, 69 Allsup, R., 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 60–62, 78, 85, 89, 90 Assessment rubrics, 46, 74, 75 Auditions, 44–46, 48, 49, 60, 73, 131–133, 141 Autocracy, 88–90 Autoethnography, 125–126 B “Banking model” of education, 10, 134 Banks, J.A., 3, 10–13, 16, 44 Bi-culturalism/bi-cultural, 100, 145 Bridge building, 25, 119 C Campbell, P.S., 3, 4, 14, 38, 39, 41, 44, 48, 49, 51, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 70, 76, 78, 83–86, 90, 91, 95–99, 106, 109, 110, 113–115, 117, 118, 127, 129, 139, 143 Citizenship education Artistic Citizenship, 16 global citizenship education, 11–13 mainstream citizenship education, 10, 11 transformative citizenship education, 10, 11, 13 Co-learner, 94, 97, 100, 119, 142, 145 Collaborations, 16, 65–67, 71, 91, 116, 119, 127, 136, 144

Competition, 41, 48, 67, 70, 79, 84, 87, 116, 119, 130, 131, 136, 145, 146 Contextualization, 43, 62, 111 Critical self-reflection, 94–95 Cultural bias, 84 Cultural capital, 44, 66, 89, 90, 108 Cultural immersion, 25, 31, 97, 117, 118 Culturally responsive teaching/culturally response pedagogy, 78, 86, 94, 97, 141 Cultural self-awareness, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 50, 93–95, 118 Culture, 9, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 28–34, 37–39, 43, 44, 48, 49, 62, 71–74, 77, 84, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98–100, 106, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 119, 129, 136–138, 143–145 Culture bearers, 110, 114, 137 D Denigration, 23, 48, 108, 112 Dialogue, 51, 53, 90 Diversity requirement, 47, 62 E Education Standards The Educational Standards Movement U.S. National Core Music Standards, 7, 63 Educational transfer, 78 Elliott, D.J., 14–16, 43, 78, 114, 137, 142 El Sistema, 50 Empathy, 9, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 118

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. M. Mellizo, Re-Imagining Curricula in Global Times, Global Perspectives on Adolescence and Education 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37619-1

151

152 Ethnomusicology, 51, 62, 78 Eurocentric, 40, 73, 74, 107 Eurocentric terminology, 45, 72, 74, 129 The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 8 F Freire, P., 6, 10, 11, 16, 78, 89, 90, 134 G Gatekeeping, 133 Global education global competency/competencies global disposition/global mindset/ global identity, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, 28, 37, 38, 47, 101, 106, 107, 118, 119, 124, 126, 144, 147 global knowledge, 16 global skills, 16 Music Education as Global Education, 13–16, 123–147 Globalizations, 4–6, 11, 13 “Good”/“high quality” music, 63, 74, 78, 85, 87, 95, 111, 133 Greene, M., 14, 15, 48, 85, 124, 145, 147 H Hess, J., 38, 43, 62, 69, 73, 76, 78, 85, 91, 92, 96, 100, 107, 108, 113, 116, 128, 138, 142, 144 Hidden curriculum, 47 Hiring practices, 75–77, 79 Humility/uncertainty, 96, 126, 144 I Identity formation, 33–34, 84 Intercultural competence, 22, 141 Intercultural/cultural understanding, 14, 23, 29, 62, 107, 114, 115, 137, 143, 145 Intercultural sensitivity assessment tools Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), 26, 29 Bennett, M., 22–29, 32, 34, 37, 38, 47, 50, 53, 61, 64–68, 70, 71, 75, 77–79, 93, 100, 105, 107, 109, 112, 114, 118, 119, 123, 125–127, 133, 136, 137, 140–142, 145, 146

Index Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), 17, 22–28, 30–32, 34, 38–39, 47, 48, 53, 60, 61, 79, 83–101, 124–126, 136, 140, 141, 146 ethnocentric/ethnocentrism defense, 23, 27, 30, 39, 49, 60, 64–66, 68, 75, 79, 127 denial, 23, 27, 38, 39, 47, 49, 60, 61, 79 minimization, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 38, 39, 49, 60, 72, 93, 112, 119 ethnorelative/ethnorelativism acceptance, 24, 28, 29, 31, 38, 72, 77, 78, 84, 92, 114, 119, 132, 137, 140, 142, 145 adaptation, 25–29, 32, 39, 78, 84, 97, 99, 100, 116, 117, 119, 142, 143, 145 integration, 25, 28, 32, 39, 78, 84, 100, 116, 118, 119, 141, 145, 146 intercultural sensitivity research, 25, 26, 28–34, 66, 114, 115 intercultural worldview orientations, 22, 125 J Jorgensen, E., 14, 16, 17, 38, 73, 116, 125, 127, 128, 147 K Kertz-Welzel, A., 5, 8, 10, 14, 38, 45, 63, 64, 78 Kratus, J., 38, 40–42, 47, 52, 53, 59–61, 68, 70, 89, 145 M Master-Apprentice, 44 Methodology, 94, 125 Music as a universal language, 48, 71–77, 108, 111 Music education diversifying music curriculum resources/ content, 33 equity in music education, 42, 63, 65, 75, 93, 94, 133, 136 ethnocentrism in music education, 17, 34, 37, 39, 40, 50, 79, 101, 124, 144 hegemony in music education, 38, 44, 46, 65, 66, 73, 84, 101, 116, 145

Index hierarchies in music education, 42, 77, 108, 116, 131 homogeneous musical content in classrooms, 39–41, 43 music program structure, 41 National Association for Music Education (NAfME), 8, 48, 63, 67 performance ensembles, 41, 42, 44, 46, 76, 89, 91, 97, 111, 145 World Music/World Music Courses, 14, 30, 49, 62, 63, 69, 70, 86, 94, 97, 114, 137, 138, 143 written music curriculum documents, 49 Music festivals, 67, 68, 141 Musicking/music making collective music making, 114, 136 singing, 46, 49, 108, 115 N Nettl, B., 14, 39, 43, 71, 108 Non-traditional ensembles, 62, 90 O Outcomes-based educational systems, 45 P Pedagogy transmission processes, 113, 119, 145 Place-based education, 110 Praxial philosophy, 14, 15 R Racism, 23, 74, 108, 136 Regelski, T.A., 14, 15, 17, 41–43, 45, 60, 61, 88, 89, 94, 107, 109, 115, 127–129, 131, 138 Routledge World Music Pedagogy Series, 98

153 S Small acts of subversion (SAS), 52, 53, 60, 61, 145 Social justice, 41, 50, 65, 76, 93, 139 Steel drums/steel pans, 62, 67, 76, 109, 110, 141, 142 Stereotypes/stereotyping, 30, 31, 33, 43, 66, 95, 96, 107, 138, 142, 145 Storytelling, 124 Superficial multiculturalism, 96 Superficial tolerance, 30 Superiority, 23, 24, 38, 48, 69, 87, 112 T Task force for the undergraduate music major Manifesto for Progressive Change in the Undergraduate Preparation of Music Majors, 51 Technical difficulty, 131 Tokenism, 96, 107 Tradition tradition vs. innovation, 47 U Ukulele, 62, 75, 109, 110, 132 University degree requirements, 59 V Value relativity, 24, 31, 50, 98–99, 114, 115 W Western art music (W.A.M.)/Western classical music, 7, 39, 40, 66, 68, 72, 73, 92, 101, 115, 128, 129 Western music concepts, 49, 73 World Music Pedagogy Attentive Listening, 98, 113, 143