Abstract
Because teaching is an inherently political act, it is important for music teacher educators to consider their role in the public discourse and how they approach the political dimensions of teaching with future music educators. In this interest article, we offer a theoretical basis for engaging preservice music teachers in critical reflection and productive dialogue throughout their undergraduate music education coursework. In combination with theory, we describe specific strategies for designing environments and activities that encourage students to identify and question dualistic thinking, engage with diverse ideas and perspectives, and interrogate underlying assumptions and discursive patterns in their own and others’ thinking. Increasing undergraduate student competency in critical reflection and dialogue could motivate and assist them to pass on these important skills to their future PK–12 students.
Educational scholars frequently characterize teaching as a political act because all teaching is shaped by and affects a broader political context (e.g., Apple, 2014; Freire, 1970/2018). As such, Koza (2007) urged music educators to consider political engagement in various registers. In this view, Big-P Politics is the register of political activity that involves elected officials, political campaigning, governmental actions, and public policy debates—what most people would call “politics.” Some influences of Big-P Politics are readily apparent in education. Teachers typically recognize that education policy initiatives at the federal (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act) and state levels (e.g., right-to-work) can have a significant impact on their professional lives, curriculum, and students’ learning opportunities. At the local level, teachers might participate in Big-P Politics by speaking at school board meetings, engaging with community leaders and businesses, or becoming active within their union (e.g., Aguilar & Dye, 2020).
Koza (2007) suggested that music educators should expand their conception of politics to include what she called little-p politics, which consists of the complex power dynamics that exist in all social interactions. Koza noted that teaching and learning are inherently social processes that are also structured by power dynamics. While some teachers might attempt to avoid discussion of Big-P Politics in their classrooms for various reasons, little-p politics are inherently unavoidable because they continually mediate interpersonal interactions within all social spaces, including schools and classrooms. For example, the little-p politics of gender in music classrooms affect issues like instrument selection, concert attire, and disparities in enrollment among instrumental and choral ensembles.
Rather than thinking about P/politics as mutually exclusive registers, music educators might consider the ways these registers are interrelated. Popkewitz (1998) described connections between P/politics in the process of selecting and creating curricular content and materials. He observed that curricular content is a partial representation of a larger, more complex, and interconnected reality. Because representing domain knowledge in its entirety is not possible, educators necessarily engage in a process that Popkewitz called “the alchemy of school subjects” (p. 26) by selecting what knowledge is included or excluded in school curricula. He argued that making decisions about what information is included or removed, who is silenced or given voice, and what ways of knowing and learning are deemed valid is a political act of power. Popkewitz emphasized that transforming domain knowledge into curriculum often uncouples knowledge from the social contexts of its production, thereby erasing power relationships, debates, and conflicting views. After knowledge has been selected for inclusion in the curriculum, the pedagogical focus becomes assessing the students’ acceptance and mastery of the content as presented.
Teachers do not make curricular choices in isolation and the options available to them are often limited by entities at the Big-P Political level. For example, Apple (2014) observed that textbook approval boards in large states like Texas, California, and Florida have exerted undue influence on the content of curricula across the United States. Because publishers are unlikely to produce books that cannot be sold in those large markets, the textbook content demanded by the approval boards in these states can affect options for educators across the country.
Within music education, the alchemy of school subjects has resulted in Eurocentric music curricula in which students at all levels primarily learn about Western classical repertoire and music traditions (Bradley, 2006; Hess, 2017; Koza, 2007). Even as some music educators have worked to diversify music content, Hess (2015) noted that non-Western music and multicultural content are often decontextualized and portrayed through a Eurocentric lens. When teaching a graduate course on world music pedagogies, Bradley (2012) observed that her students were often reluctant to consider teaching their students about the sociopolitical and historical contexts of world musics. The teachers feared that discussing the micro and macro political influences on music creation would be considered too political by students, parents, and administrators. She suggested that this fear was grounded in teachers’ implicit beliefs that studying, for example, how South African Apartheid informed protest songs would lead students to consider and desire discussion concerning ongoing racism present in their own communities.
Several music education scholars have called for music educators to embrace political engagement and leverage music education to teach skills and dispositions required for effective democratic participation and citizenship (Elliott & Silverman, 2014; Woodford, 2005). Allsup (2016) and Hess (2019) go further, advocating that music education adopt an activist orientation toward social change or liberation. Despite increasing calls for music educators to actively engage with the complex political dimensions of teaching in their scholarship and pedagogy, some music teacher educators (MTEs) are hesitant to address topics that could be considered political. In their recent survey of MTEs (N = 361), Salvador and Kelly-McHale (2017) found that 10 to 15% of participants believed addressing social justice issues had no place in music educator preparation. Among respondents who did express interest in social justice issues, about 50% used “difference-blind” (p. 6) terms. 1 Similar to the music education profession as a whole, 89% of the respondents to this study identified as white. It is possible that MTE’s use of coded language was driven by their desire to avoid difficult topics that could lead to conflict in their classrooms. Bradley (2006) suggested that music educators commonly engage in racially coded language as a way of avoiding full engagement with issues of racism and discrimination. Koza (2007) reminded us, however, that music educators’ silence concerning controversial topics is a political act that tacitly supports the status quo in our curricula and teaching practice and reinscribes existing patterns of marginalization and discrimination in P–12 and university music education programs.
Literature on preservice music teacher (PMT) preparation is divided about the role and value of theoretical versus practical pedagogical techniques. On one hand, music education scholars consistently call for MTEs to engage in theory-based exploration of the self, schools, music education, and society designed to disrupt the cycle of marginalization (Bradley, 2006, 2012; Hess, 2017; Koza, 2007). On the other hand, researchers investigating the effectiveness of music teacher education reported that PMTs and early career teachers believed theoretical materials contributed little to their preparation for succeeding at their jobs (Conway, 2002; Groulx, 2016; Valerio et al., 2012). When proposing improvements to methods courses, such authors suggested faculty should teach from a practical applications perspective and increase observations and relevant field experiences. Rather than casting theory and practice as oppositional, MTEs could consider the generative potential of framing practical experiences within the little-p political realities of socially constructed power imbalances within schools (see Freire, 1970/2018 on praxis). Salvador and Kelly-McHale (2017) suggested that one factor influencing MTEs’ silence about P/political topics was the need for more information, resources, and professional development. Perhaps a reason that some PMTs, early career teachers, and methods instructors see theory-based instruction as irrelevant or unimportant to their success is that some MTEs need more effective strategies for engaging PMTs.
Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to describe methods that foster critical reflection and deliberative dialogue among PMTs. Interwoven with discussion of relevant theory, we present strategies that we each use in our own undergraduate methods courses to design environments that encourage students to identify and question dualistic thinking, engage with diverse ideas and perspectives, and interrogate underlying assumptions and discursive patterns in their own and others’ thinking. By illustrating some of our teaching practices and presenting them within their theoretical context, we hope to bridge the gap between critical theory and practice, inviting other MTEs to consider both “why might I” and “possibilities for how to.” Specifically, we suggest ways to collaborate with students to establish environments for dialogue, offer strategies to build skills for dialogue, and give examples of critical literacy and problem-posing pedagogies in action.
We offer these ideas based on our own teaching experiences, the positive feedback we have received from our students, and the impacts we have observed on their practices over time. While the examples we describe are sometimes content-specific, we offer them with the intent that MTEs would modify the underlying strategies and apply them in a variety of undergraduate courses. We also acknowledge that as individuals of privileged identities and backgrounds who tend to teach students similar to us, our experiences using these practices cannot be universalized. MTEs with different identities, experiences, teaching contexts, backgrounds, and students may not have the freedom to challenge their students in this way or risk professional criticism or consequences by trying to implement these teaching practices. These MTEs also may have different suggestions for effective practices.
Establishing Environments for Dialogue
Teaching practices in PK–12 schools often presume learning as a cognitive process separate from emotions, and schools as places to be detached and rational (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). When preservice teachers (PTs) have internalized the idea that learning should not be emotional or embodied, they can be unprepared for emotionally charged dialogue arising from differences in opinions and experiences (Britzman, 2000). Far from cognition being detached from emotion and the body, however, Immordino-Yang and Demasio’s (2007) meta-analysis suggested emotional processes are required for skills and knowledge acquired in school to transfer to novel situations and to real life . . . it may be through an emotional route that social influences on culture come to shape learning, thought, and behavior. (p. 5)
Britzman (2000) proposed that PTs come to teacher education programs full of lovely knowledge that is unquestioned and based on belief rather than fact. Pitt and Britzman (2003) asserted that teacher educators must provide opportunities for PTs to create difficult knowledge, which is “what one makes from the ruins of one’s lovely knowledge” (p. 766). They described this process of constructing difficult knowledge as emotionally significant. Researchers have corroborated the emotional struggle inherent in confronting exclusive practices within music teacher education and also within music education as a field (Salvador et al., 2020).
One piece of lovely knowledge that some PTs bring to teacher education programs is as follows: my education was how education should be and the structures I experienced and thrived within are normal and good (Pitt & Britzman, 2003). In contrast, the impetus for some students of color to enter teacher education arises from a desire to disrupt systems that marginalized them in their educational experiences (Ramirez, 2010). Most PMTs begin music teacher education intending to teach secondary ensembles, and they are most influenced by their high school director to make this decision (Thornton & Bergee, 2008). PMTs predominantly come from large, suburban high schools, and even if their undergraduate education included field experiences in different locales, they typically want to teach in a program like the one they attended (Kelly, 2003). Throughout PMTs’ school music education experiences, the people—secondary music students, music educators, PMTs, and MTEs—are disproportionately white, even in comparison with already disproportionately white groups such as secondary school ensembles, undergraduates, teachers, and professors (Elpus, 2015; Elpus & Abril, 2019; Matthews & Koner, 2017; Salvador & Kelly-McHale, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2016; see online supplemental Table 1). Disproportionate representation of white people could indicate that the status quo in music education is not, in fact, good for everyone. The demographics of music education and music teacher education also could suggest that PMTs lack exposure to racially and culturally diverse students, teachers, and colleagues. Thus, PMTs’ lovely knowledge about race in music education, schools, and society is an unavoidable P/political topic that requires dialogue so that PMTs may create difficult knowledge.
Due to the limitations of students’ experiences, Spruce (2015) suggested that merely eliciting their voices in the classroom is insufficient to disrupt long-standing power structures and hierarchical relationships in music classrooms. Therefore, we propose that MTEs foster a disposition of critical inquiry, which Charmaz (2017) described as “a transformative paradigm that seeks to expose, oppose, and redress forms of oppression, inequity, and injustice” (p. 35). Modeling critical inquiry requires methodological self-awareness, the systematic use of doubt, seeking awareness of unearned privileges, and reflecting on the historical contingency of one’s worldviews. By adopting this reflexive disposition, MTEs and PMTs can begin to recognize that their perspectives and voices are constructed and understood within a system of broader discourses and power relationships that privilege some voices and silence others.
Parameters for Engagement
Engaging with political discourse requires a skill set that is less about content and more about understanding how to create productive dialogue, in which the goal is “not to persuade each other, but rather to participate and explore that which can be created” (Benedict & Schmidt, 2007, p. 21). Democratically established parameters for engagement can help students negotiate a balance between safety and honesty/transparency. Models for possible guidelines are widely available (e.g., The Dialogue Center, n.d.), and often invite participants to consider their own physical manifestations of emotional responses such as sweaty palms or flushed skin. These somatic cues can help participants remain engaged, by (a) naming what emotion the somatic cue may signal, (b) identifying what part of the dialogue is creating this emotion and sensation, and (c) considering what this might mean for a personal journey toward difficult knowledge. Rather than have the instructor present rules for dialogue at the beginning of a course, we prefer to have classes of students formulate their parameters for engagement in dialogue through dialogue. We recommend the parameters remain a living document, open to amendment throughout a course. Furthermore, the class should regularly revisit the parameters, seeking to ensure that the class does not simply reenact the power dynamics prevalent in the dominant culture.
Discomfortable Discourse
As educators, our instinct may be to create a space free of conflict as a way to protect participants from emotional struggle. Establishing a “safe space” characterized by a sterile rejection of controversy runs counter to the evidence that learning is an emotional process and that creating difficult knowledge involves emotionally significant grappling (Brown, 2006; Pitt & Britzman, 2003; Salvador et al., 2020). The example of race in music education illustrates why sterile spaces are not possible or productive. Sometimes spaces of white safety are symbolically violent for people who have been historically marginalized (Leonardo & Porter, 2010). The symbolic violence arises when spaces are rendered safe for white students by erasing marginalized voices or casting doubt on their experiences.
As guides in dialogue, one political idea that MTEs can help bring to PMTs’ conscious awareness is that white experience is neither neutral nor universal. Storytelling can be an important way to decenter whiteness (Bell, 2009), in part because narratives engage listener/reader/observer emotions and learning can take place in a feel-think-change process (Brown, 2006). MTEs cannot rely on individuals from historically marginalized communities to shoulder this burden, because sharing personal stories may elicit memories of past trauma. MTEs must be ready to provide information and illustration, perhaps through use of videos or vignettes. While MTEs can invite PMTs from historically marginalized groups to add their experiences and perspectives if they wish, these exchanges should prioritize students’ well-being.
First Seeking to Understand: Developing Listening Skills
We have found that most of our music education students have advanced skills for formulating thoughts and expressing them in words—although we do need to help those who verbalize easily make room for those who prefer more time to formulate their thinking into speech. However, students generally do not have equally developed skills in listening for meaning when others speak. It is therefore important to create opportunities, such as listening dyads, to practice listening to understand rather than respond. For 2 minutes, one person in a dyad may only respond with gestures or affirming sounds, while their partner talks about a selected topic. They then trade roles and take another two minutes. To debrief, the facilitator can ask questions such as, What did you notice about yourself as a talker? As a listener? What does that tell you about how you personally can work within this space to nurture dialogue? Do you need to create space for others by listening? Do you need to speak up to contribute your ideas?
Offer the opportunity to revisit the class’s parameters for dialogue to ensure that what the class learned about being talkers or listeners is reflected in the parameters.
Another way to help PMT’s learn to listen to each other is a modified fishbowl exercise. Fishbowls are especially useful when a group is polarized in their thinking about a topic and struggling to be in dialogue. Ask the students on one “side” to create an inward-facing circle in the center of the room. Students on the other “side” sit in a concentric, inward-facing circle on the outside of the classroom. Individuals from the inside group discuss their views on the topic, focusing on why this issue has particular meaning for them or why they feel strongly about it. The outside circle’s role is to listen carefully, seeking to better understand. After a set amount of time, students in the outside circle paraphrase what they have heard. Those in the inner circle can affirm understandings and may modify or correct as needed. Then, the circles trade places and repeat the exercise. Optimally, every person shares a viewpoint, and the moderator ensures no one dominates. By honing their listening skills and engaging in empathetic paraphrasing, PMTs can discover that they may share some views, but also may differ from others on their “side.” They also might share some views with (or at least better understand) the “opposition.” After a fishbowl, revisit your class’s parameters. Has your class identified paraphrasing, affirming, modifying, and correcting as ways to participate in dialogue and move it forward?
Critical Literacy and Problem-Posing Pedagogies
Critical literacy is often attributed to Freire (Freire, 1970/2018) and his theories about teaching literacy aimed at conscientization and emancipation. McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004) state that critical literacy “involves thinking beyond the text to understand issues such as why the author wrote about a particular topic, wrote from a particular perspective, or chose to include some ideas about a topic and exclude others” (p. 13). Thus, critical literacy requires examining issues of power and appreciating the complexity of problems or situations presented in the text. Reading critically disrupts information that is presented as commonplace by examining issues from multiple perspectives with attention to source, audience, discursive content, and the broader historical and sociopolitical context in which a text was created. Most individuals tend to universalize their experiences, particularly those from dominant groups whose perspectives are normalized within dominant discourse. Critical literacy requires that individuals develop self-awareness of their subjectivity through personal reflection. McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004) note that methods to foster critical literacy skills are not universal. In this section, we share three methods we use in our classrooms to foster critical literacy skills and invite MTEs to consider adapting them for their own educational contexts.
Finding the In-Between: Identifying and Resisting Dualistic Thinking
Teachers often provide students with opposing viewpoints in their curriculum. One common way of addressing these viewpoints is to have students take up oppositional views and engage in mock debates. Mock debates can be fun and are engaging for many students, but we suggest they are most effective when facilitators then help students move beyond this intentional polarization to consider the productive tensions and the middle spaces between the viewpoints. Anticipation guides provide one way to achieve this.
Anticipation guides can help students connect new information to prior knowledge and experiences, provide a focus for reading, and stimulate interest or increase motivation. An anticipation guide is a set of statements about a reading or topic intended to engage students’ prior knowledge and inspire their curiosity. Students read each statement and indicate whether they agree. To create an anticipation guide, Duffelmeyer (1994) suggested educators write statements that are general enough to engage and be understood by someone without course-related knowledge, and that challenge students’ beliefs by presenting arguments for or against some idea or principle. For sample anticipation guide items, see online supplemental material Appendix A. Forcing a yes/no answer is a surprisingly effective way to identify and resist dualistic thinking. Many students are unwilling or unable to choose yes or no unequivocally, and this leads naturally to their discovery of shortcomings in dualistic thinking and their exploration of the generative spaces created through dialogue in-between. Some teachers save anticipation guides from the beginning of a course and then revisit them later to spark further dialogue about information or experiences that may reveal changed thinking.
Comparative Method Book Analysis
Students in music teaching methods courses can complete critical analyses of method books. Such analyses could begin with reading historical background on the History of Music Education in public schools (Keene, 1982) and engaging with Apple’s (2014) notion of “official knowledge.” We suggest that MTEs begin this process with a guided critical reading of a standard instrumental method book in class. MTEs would guide students to examine the verbal and visual content for characteristics such as sequence of instruction, underlying learning theory, multicultural music content, and depictions of race, gender, and ability (see online supplemental materials for sample questions). The students then choose two method books from a selection of texts commonly used in public school instrumental music programs and complete a comparative analysis guided by the questions we used in class. Additionally, students specify which text they would use in their own classroom, why they chose it, what they would want to change about it, and how they might supplement the text in their curriculum.
Conflicting Viewpoints and Generative Dissensus
In critical pedagogy and literacy scholarship, teachers work toward developing critical thinking skills through what Freire called “problem-posing education” (Freire, 1970/2018, p. 109; Hess, 2019, p. 19). Whereas a pedagogy of problem-solving encourages students to use recently learned information to make decisions to guide action, problem-posing education attempts to suspend decision making in preference of sustained critical thinking and reflection. This pedagogical process begins by representing students’ experiential knowledge as problems to be collectively addressed. Students engage in action to address the problem only after achieving what Freire (1970/2018) called conscientization, which is characterized by the development of a meta-awareness of one’s condition in the world and previously held beliefs or perceptions. For many students, conscientization can take years and is not achievable in a single course. For PMTs, posing and reflecting on critical questions about their teaching praxis is an essential skill for their ongoing professional development and necessary for interrogating existing systems of educational inequity.
To foster students’ critical thinking and help them resist quick judgments, MTEs can ask them to read conflicting viewpoints about philosophical “problems” within our field that have no clear answer or solution. Typically, at least one side of this debate is familiar to the students or embodies their own perspectives and experiences in their music classrooms. For example, students could read Reynolds’ (2000) “The Repertoire is the Curriculum” juxtaposed with Small’s (1998) introductory chapter of Musicking: The Meaning of Performing and Listening. After students complete these readings, they could engage in a classroom dialogue where they consider the tensions of these polarized viewpoints. MTEs could ask students to consider the frame, intent, and audience of each author’s work. Initially, students tend to “take sides” and argue for one particular view. Just as we described in our discussion of anticipation guides, we prefer not to set up mock debates in which a group or person “wins” through strength of argument or personality. Instead, we guide students toward a generative dissensus where they can find productive value in the tension between seemingly contradictory viewpoints when making curricular decisions. Through generative dissensus, students learn that delaying decision making may prove beneficial and future action may be continually informed by an ongoing consideration of different perspectives.
Affinity Diagrams
Affinity diagrams, often used as a decision-making tool in business (Scupin, 1997), can be adapted to engage PMTs in problem-posing and facilitate dialogue, negotiation, and critical thinking. For example, students could read the existing Music Standards produced by the National Association for Music Education (2014) in juxtaposition with the College Music Society Report of the Task Force on Undergraduate Music Major (2014). After reading these sources, MTEs could engage students in an affinity map exercise to address the question, “What does it mean to be musically educated in the 21st Century?” using the following steps:
Each student writes ideas or data observations on sticky notes (one idea per note).
Students create small groups and combine their sticky notes. Duplicates or similar ideas are stacked together to illustrate conceptual agreements.
On a large surface, the groups arrange their notes into idea clusters. Some ideas may not fit into clusters/categories. Resist adding structure or hierarchy at this step.
The groups create labels for each idea cluster/category. This label may be an existing note or need to be generated separately.
The groups create a diagram or model by writing plausible hierarchies, processes, and/or relationships between the idea clusters/categories or individual items. This step may require rearranging or creating new items/ideas.
Throughout this process, students must consider ethical issues about power, representation, and equity as they create their affinity diagram—engaging as active participants in one of the ongoing debates in our field. After each group completes their diagram, they rotate to examine, compare, and contrast the affinity maps created by other groups. Finally, the entire class gathers to discuss and critically reflect on the entire process.
Conclusion
Teaching is a political act interwoven throughout P/political registers, from the power dynamics that structure every social interaction to broader political and legal processes. As such, it is essential for MTEs to mentor PMTs to consider the political dimensions of their teaching practice. MTEs may find false choices presented in the existing research literature: (a) Do we prepare educators to succeed in the music education profession as it currently exists, or do we prepare them to create the future? and (b) Do we provide PMTs with strategies, frameworks, and structures that will help them with the logistical and practical demands of their jobs, or instead work on their skills for continually questioning and working to change existing structures? As with our students, grappling with these questions as we wrote created opportunities for critical thinking and revealed the rich generative space of “both/and.” That is, critical reflection and deliberative dialogue do not displace methods course content. Rather, they are methods to address existing content in a critical way that allows students to consider their role in the alchemy of curriculum and realize that much about music education practice remains contested. This knowledge allows them to make important choices about content, pedagogy, and curriculum based on their vision and values rather than on past practices or tradition.
In writing this article together, we chose to embrace the productive possibilities of the tensions reflected in the above questions. We therefore considered generative possibilities between preparing teachers for the classroom and the future for music education we and our students hope to create. This grappling resulted in what we view as better questions: How are we defining “success” for the PMTs that we mentor? Success by whose standards and toward what ends? What practical needs are more immediate than the need to stop perpetuating systems and teaching practices that exclude and devalue some people and musics? Doctoral-level programs that prepare future MTEs often do not include courses on higher education pedagogy, and many MTEs may feel unprepared to foster critical reflection and deliberative dialogue. Within this article we have offered theoretical and practical starting points for MTEs who are interested in developing their own skills and expertise in addressing difficult topics and pursuing educational equity with their students.
Using critical pedagogy in music teacher preparation does come with some risks. Hess (2019) cautions that critical pedagogical practices could reinscribe colonial and patriarchal power structures if they are implemented in a way that gives dominance to teacher voice and limits alternative perspectives. Additionally, a particular concern in music teacher preparation programs is that many of the students come from privileged backgrounds. As critical pedagogy attempts to give weight to student perspectives, privileged students may entrench in the dominant discourses that merely validate their perspectives and lived experiences. Consideration of alternative perspectives and divergent discourses is essential for critical reflection. In more homogeneous classrooms, teachers and students must seek out the alternative perspectives from external sources. Finally, posing issues as “problems” can prompt students to seek quick and decisive solutions to guide their teaching practice. This impetus is often intensified by PTs’ concern with obtaining clear directives about “what to do” in their classrooms. MTEs must make deliberate efforts to delay decision making or settling on readily available practical solutions to questions and challenges related to pedagogical practice.
As MTEs, the foremost disposition we seek to instill (and to model) is constant reflexivity. Thus, we would hope students would leave our classes knowing that their preparation to teach was not an endpoint, and that our students have developed the skills of reflexive praxis and the confidence and resilience to try new things. We also embrace our role in P/politics and note that it is a deliberate choice if an MTE allows students to leave a degree program with only their preexisting viewpoints. Perhaps most importantly, we do not think that coming to a resolution on these questions is as important as the dialogues and discoveries we had through this collaboration. We hope that through this article, we have provided both theoretical foundation and practical suggestions for others to begin or continue similar journeys toward critical reflection and productive dialogue with their undergraduate music education students.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837211034136 – Supplemental material for Fostering Critical Reflection and Productive Dialogue in Music Teacher Education
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_10570837211034136 for Fostering Critical Reflection and Productive Dialogue in Music Teacher Education by Adam G. Harry and Karen Salvador in Journal of Music Teacher Education
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
