Culturally Responsive Pedagogical/Andragogical Context Knowledge: A Conceptual Model for Music Education

Abstract

To better suit the needs of all learners, music teacher educators must develop a mindset of culturally responsive practice in preservice educators. In this interest article, we present a conceptual model intended to promote theory, discussion, and practice relevant to culturally sustaining music education. The model builds on our prior empirical work concerning music teacher educators’ conceptions of culturally responsive education, which we unite with Barnett and Hodson’s concept of pedagogical context knowledge and theories of andragogy and heutagogy into one comprehensive framework. We describe each facet of the model and provide suggestions for its use in both research and practice.

Keywords

culturally responsive education culturally sustaining pedagogy music teacher education pedagogical context knowledge

Music education researchers continue to explore issues of equity and influences of various facets of culture on learning. One manifestation of this work is in the area of culturally responsive music education. In recent years, several authors have described culturally responsive music education within PK–12 programs (e.g., Abril, 2009) and music programs outside of the school environments (e.g., Shaw, 2015), and how it might be addressed in music teacher education programs (e.g., Lind & McKoy, 2016).

Scholars have examined approaches for learning about and valuing students’ cultural heritages, teacher dispositions that validate students’ cultural backgrounds, and employing musics and materials from a broader swath of cultures. Most authors have focused on race and/or ethnicity as the primary manifestations of culture in culturally responsive education (CRE). Largely ignored is how the intersectionality of race and ethnicity with other facets of culture, such as socioeconomic status and religion, may inform culturally responsive teaching in music as well as work with student populations that are more heterogeneous rather than homogeneous (Bond, 2017). Although the scholarship within music education to date is instructive, the need for continual and rigorous examination of our professional practices concerning CRE as it manifests in multiple settings is essential.

Our desire to meet the need for a more robust representation of music teacher educator (MTE) perspectives within this literature led us to complete a survey study (see Bond & Russell, 2019) in which we investigated MTE beliefs about and engagement with CRE. Two hundred and twenty eight MTEs responded to our 18-item questionnaire concerning their familiarity and comfort with CRE practices as well as their views on the importance and use of those practices. As a result of this work, we found that MTEs seem to interact with CRE at a surface level. Although the participants indicated familiarity with a definition of CRE and viewed general pedagogical elements of responsive practices as important, they were least comfortable with the literature base on CRE and identified elements connected to lessening the divide between home and school experiences as least important. Survey respondents also reported less comfort with creating opportunities for students to practice responsive teaching and to assess students’ development in responsive teaching. MTEs were more comfortable leading students to explore their own culture(s) and bias(es), work that might take place within the collegiate classroom as opposed to an authentic context experience necessary for students to practice responsive teaching. Our interpretation of survey results led us to posit that MTEs were not integrating CRE in all aspects of their practice. To move forward toward this goal, we believe the profession may benefit from a model used to create a purposeful blend of the teacher knowledge base with cultural responsivity. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to build on the work of previous researchers by presenting a model of culturally responsive pedagogical/andragogical context knowledge (CRPACK).

The CRPACK Model

Following the example of other researchers who have extended the pedagogical context knowledge (PCK) framework (e.g., Mishra & Koehler, 2006), we propose an additional model of PCK to incorporate CRE. As seen in Figure 1, CRPACK is the integration of CRE and pedagogical/andragogical context knowledge (Barnett & Hodson, 2001); the term pedagogical refers specifically to the teaching of children (for our purposes, the PK–12 population), while the term andragogical applies to preservice teachers and current practitioners returning to study as graduate students (i.e., adult learners). We will address each area of the model separately prior to describing potential examples of integration between all components.

Figure 1.

A visual matrix of the culturally responsive pedagogical/andragogical context knowledge model.

Culturally Responsive Education

The latent components underlying participants’ responses concerning the importance of CRE (see Bond & Russell, 2019) aligned with Ladson-Billings’ (1995a) three-pronged approach; therefore, we used her three pillars to represent cultural responsiveness in our model. In Ladson-Billings’ words, cultural responsiveness

rests on three . . . propositions: (a) Students must achieve academic success, (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence, and (c) students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order. (p. 160)

Although others have conceptualized CRE as a five-element model (see Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011) or as a culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012), the fundamental principles articulated by Ladson-Billings (1995a) are present throughout the literature and allow us to ground our conceptual model in empirical data.

Pedagogical Context Knowledge

We incorporated Barnett and Hodson’s (2001) conception of PCK, a model built from the work of Shulman (1986) and others (e.g., Clandinin, 1985; Geddis, 1993; Grossman, 1990), as such foundational knowledge has come to be viewed as crucial to effective teaching. Although other models of teacher knowledge have included knowledge of context (e.g., Carlsen, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987), Barnett and Hodson (2001) highlighted the importance of

(a) understanding the social location of particular clusters of beliefs and practices; (b) acknowledging the context-dependence of most of what they think and do; and (c) recognizing the existence of different modes of discourse, each having a distinctive sociocultural origin. (p. 440)

Their model includes academic and research knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional knowledge, and classroom knowledge. Academic and research knowledge refers to knowledge of a particular content area, the nature of that content area, and of learning in general terms. Pedagogical content knowledge is knowledge of teaching a particular subject area to children effectively; for example, knowing common misconceptions about the content and planning accordingly or sequencing the content appropriately. In contrast to academic and research knowledge, professional knowledge is “the knowing of teaching by unconsciously reflected experience,” (Barnett & Hodson, 2001, p. 438) exemplified in the staffroom conversations where information is shared between experienced teachers and novice teachers. Sometimes referred to as “teacher lore,” this knowledge is practical but often not grounded in empirically supported practice. Classroom knowledge is knowledge of one’s classroom and the students engaging in the classroom environment. It is knowledge “rooted in the day-to-day experience of particular educational situations” (Barnett & Hodson, 2001, p. 439) that allows a teacher to “read the room” and respond in the moment. The four knowledge domains are situated within the broader societal and educational knowledge landscape, meaning that one navigates teaching while negotiating the complexities of their societal and educational contexts. While we find Barnett and Hodson’s (2001) work to be the most appropriate framework of teacher knowledge to consider in connection to responsive education, we believe that further development is necessary to explicitly address culturally responsive practice, particularly the third strand of developing a critical consciousness.

Andragogy

As MTEs, we believe it necessary not only to apply PCK to PK–12 populations but also to consider the specific needs of adult learners in our undergraduate and graduate programs. Andragogy is “the art and science of helping adults learn, in contrast to pedagogy as the art and science of teaching children” (Knowles, 1980, p. 43). In making this distinction, Knowles (1980) observed that effective adult learning is characteristically autonomous and collaborative, goal- and relevancy-oriented, practical, and connected to knowledge and life experiences. Importantly, Knowles (1970) stated “the main reason why adult education has not achieved the impact of our civilizations of which it is capable is that most teachers of adults have only known how to teach adults as if they were children” (p. 37).

Knowles (1973) did not seek to clarify a defining point with regard to age between pedagogy and andragogy; rather, in his theory, he strove to differentiate “between the assumptions about learners that have traditionally been made by those who practice pedagogy in contrast to the assumptions made in andragogy” (p. 43). For example, in considering differences of self-concept, learners typically depend on teachers to assess their needs in pedagogy, whereas in andragogy learners have greater self-awareness and are able to contribute this knowledge to their educational experiences. Because adult learners often bring real-world experience to their learning, their orientation to education is more problem-centered, rather than subject-centered. In light of biological, legal, social, and psychological definitions of adulthood, as well as the variability of life experience reflected in disparate university student populations, we believe that traditional preservice teachers (i.e., 18- to 24-year-olds), nontraditional preservice teachers (i.e., students older than 25-years-old (Kenner & Weinerman, 2011)), and graduate students may be considered adult learners.

Heutagogic Framing

Heutagogy is the study of self-determined learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2013). Heutagogy “further expands upon the role of human agency in the learning process” (Blaschke & Hase, 2016, p. 27) by positioning the music learner as the primary agent in their own learning experience. We posit that heutagogy has a long history in educational thinking and writing—the tenets of heutagogy connected to self-determination and reflection can be seen in the writings of Dewey (e.g., Dewey, 1910) and have influenced more recent thinking as well (e.g., Foucault, 1992; Kolb, 1984; Larrivee, 2000; Schön, 1991). We argue that heutagogy is a logical extension of this line of thinking in reflective practice given the focus on self-directed learning toward autonomous, teacher-free, and self-identified learning goals and processes. More specifically, in a heutagogical model, learning moves from the andragogical form of self-directed learning, which requires reflection, to self-determined learning, which also requires reflection. Therefore, it may be helpful to situate CRPACK within a heutagogic frame in order to amplify the importance of self-determined learning and metacognitive reflection in teacher practice, which is seemingly omitted from Knowles’ 1980 description of andragogy.

Blaschke (2012) further differentiated heutagogy from andragogy through the emphasis on developing skill, reflection, and metacognition to create double-loop learning (Eberle, 2013), rather than simply linear learning and teaching processes. In heutagogic-informed didactics, students are given the opportunity to chart their own learning path, actively defining and refining their own learning objectives and outcomes. The move toward self-determination has the potential to drastically alter how we think about education through the life span (McPherson, 2016). It may be a way for music educators to advance from culturally responsive music education to a form of culturally nourishing music education in which students develop agency in their music skills and knowledge within their own cultures, thus encouraging lifelong engagement in music. As music classrooms continue to change with regard to student demographics and music backgrounds, heutagogic thinking may better equip teachers with independent and flexible mindsets, help them serve typically disenfranchised student populations, and smooth their transition to inservice teaching. Moreover, a heutagogic-based philosophy that is more accepting of student-determined learning may combat unwanted teacher attrition and migration associated with student diversity (Russell, 2012).

CRPACK

Music education researchers previously have identified the significance of contextual knowledge in urban teaching (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 2011; Shaw, 2015) and have called for further study of PCK within the field. Specifically, Shaw (2015, 2016) investigated the enactment of PCK through culturally relevant teaching, providing rich case studies of a “specialised [sic] contextual knowledge” (Shaw, 2016, p. 12). We believe that this “specialized” knowledge may be best explored as CRPACK. In this model, we bring together the components of CRE and pedagogical/andragogical context knowledge situated in heutogogic double-loop learning. PCK is knowledge of teaching others to teach music as informed by one’s understanding of the profession, the classroom(s) in which they work, educational research, and the broader societal and educational landscape; most specifically, this knowledge might be best classified as andragogical context knowledge, as the majority of preservice teachers are adult learners. CRPACK for MTEs, therefore, would be the andragogical context knowledge of teaching others to teach music as influenced by cultural responsiveness. Situated in heutagogy, the CRPACK model may lead to more self-directed, reflective, and self-sustaining forms of culturally responsive practice. The CRPACK model also may prove valuable in promoting greater awareness of knowledge-context connections among music educators and MTEs, and as a tool for research. As such, we will share suggestions and examples for how MTEs and music educators might develop this knowledge, as well as implications for the use of the CRPACK model in research.

CRPACK Development in MTEs

Before MTEs are able to facilitate preservice teachers’ construction of CRPACK, they must first develop this knowledge themselves. As we posited previously (see Bond & Russell, 2019), current MTEs may not have engaged in culturally responsive literature, research, or practice during their own studies, which may account for their surface-level interactions with CRE. Developing this knowledge within the CRPACK model may occur through a deeper investment in the CRE-related music education literature (e.g., Bond, 2017; Lind & McKoy, 2016) and, particularly, general education literature in which scholars have discussed current applications and revisions to the initial culturally relevant pedagogy frameworks (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris, 2012). Additional resource-related activities may include participating in campus workshops or seminars, examining resources within centers for diversity, equity and inclusion, or exploring podcasts.

Building on a strong foundation of culturally responsive pedagogical knowledge, MTEs will be better equipped to connect their PCK with their expertise in music and integrate the two to teach through a CRPACK lens in music teacher preparation programs. MTEs might also apply CRPACK by engaging with PK–12 populations personally, not just through supervision of preservice teacher efforts. Settings for faculty to consider in applying CRPACK principles to their own teaching may include elementary and secondary partnership schools, community-based organizations not yet connected with the university, or programs newly designed for this purpose. Because it is likely that MTEs who have spent considerable time in academia did not teach with cultural responsivity in mind during their time as PK–12 educators, creating opportunities to connect pedagogy with practice may allow them to model effectively and build credibility. Personal experience may also assist MTEs in developing strategies and reflecting on practices they can share with preservice teachers.

CRPACK Development in Music Teacher Preparation Programs

First and foremost, MTEs could use the development of CRPACK in their own practice to model in both undergraduate and graduate teaching, and with school-aged children. To know responsive teaching, one must experience it in their own learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Second, development of CRPACK would need to take place over time. It is unlikely that isolated experiences with any of the CRPACK components or a single presentation of the CRPACK concept in general will affect preservice teachers’ knowledge base. Rather, in alignment with the research on effective professional development (see Bautista et al., 2017) and cultivating a critical consciousness (see Lind & McKoy, 2016; McKoy, 2013; Robinson, 2017), the CRPACK model would function as the theoretical foundation of the curriculum with facets threaded throughout the degree program, thereby providing music education students with multiple opportunities to use CRPACK as a lens for developing knowledge and cultural responsivity. Teacher educator modeling within a curriculum that explores the components of CRPACK across individual classes would establish the optimal environment to develop CRPACK.

Within this ideal setup, the stage would be set for leading students through various classroom and practicum teaching experiences that can build CRPACK. We offer the following examples of classroom strategies and practicum experiences to illustrate the CRPACK model in action. In doing so, we must stress that it is not our intention to suggest that one such experience or activity will be sufficient in cultivating CRPACK—at its core CRE is a mindset (Hammond, 2015) that cannot be distilled into a set of strategies separate from needed dispositions or the relationships built between teacher and student. Rather, we posit that CRPACK may result as the culmination of much discussion, participation in thoughtful activities, engagement with a diverse population of students, reflection, and commitment to continued learning throughout a career.

Examples of Classroom Strategies

A core component of CRPACK is raising one’s critical consciousness while developing music skills concurrently. To do so, one might begin with utilizing strategies for critical consciousness development and creating opportunities for students to incorporate/explore this new knowledge through music-specific projects and assessments. For example, in her 2017 interest article, Robinson shared several strategies used as part of the professional development series Urban Music Education: Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections, such as using a game to explore social structures of power and access, mapping one’s intersectionality, and presenting examples of effective teachers through varied media (see, Robinson, 2017, for full details). To connect Robinson’s (2017) professional development strategies to the CRPACK model, we suggest referencing one’s music background as an additional category of one’s identity to prompt conversation about which musics (e.g., Western European Art Music) and ways of being musical (e.g., literacy in Western European Art Music notation) are privileged and which are oppressed (e.g., global musics, learning by ear).

Preservice teachers could further explore their intersectional and multimusic identities by creating podcasts (Bond, 2015) in the form of an episodic series or independent course project through which they gather together audio examples of music that are meaningful to or reflective of their life experience. They would use a digital audio workstation to add narration describing the significance of each excerpt to their lives. In turn, MTEs might encourage preservice teachers to compare the content of their podcasts with the repertoire used in their local community, school music classrooms, or with podcasts developed by the children they might serve. Such a project has the potential for heightening preservice teacher awareness of self and the hidden curricula they may have encountered, and providing them with a strategy for use with PK–12 students either in their partnership work or future classroom. Moreover, this longitudinal activity can help create a heutagogical outcome of self-reflection and metacognition (Blaschke & Brindley, 2011) in which the music learner examines not only what was learned but also how it was learned, and the impact that the learning had on their music mores.

Another strategy for incorporating the CRPACK model is to help students make connections between their philosophy and practice as expressed by the material culture of their classrooms. Similar to a discussion of cultural responsivity, addressing one’s philosophical beliefs should be an iterative process in the undergraduate curriculum. When students are required to write philosophy statements in the first semester of our program, we stress that it will not be a static document; as the students grow, gain more experience, and learn more about who they are (or want to be) as a teacher, so, too, will their philosophy shift, develop, or become more clear.

Following a revision of the philosophy statement written in their junior year (completed alongside continued discussion of the CRE literature), we encourage students to consider how the material culture and physical setup of our teaching space is reflective (or not) of their beliefs about teaching and learning. Preservice teachers might be led to voice their reflections through discussion, writing, creating visual depictions of potential spaces, or physically altering the room design to be in alignment with one’s (or the consistent threads of the collective’s) philosophical beliefs. In doing so, MTEs can stress the importance of aligning thought with action, philosophy with practice.

MTEs might also cultivate a critical consciousness with regard to anticipated tasks of music teachers, such as programming. For example, MTEs can encourage students to collect information about repertoire selection within local districts or regional festivals and analyze trends through a critical perspective. As a natural extension to this analysis, MTEs could lead students to design concerts that demonstrate culturally diverse student learning, a strategy that participants in our recent study (see Bond & Russell, 2019) reported to use only occasionally. Concert programs would be built on students’ preferences and identities, ideally in connection to ensembles that preservice teachers have experienced or led with university partnerships or community music schools connected to the university. Such a concert program design project would also provide an opportunity for MTEs to assess preservice teachers’ developing understanding of CRE practices. A task that participants identified as least comfortable to incorporate (see Bond & Russell, 2019), assessing preservice teacher development of cultural responsiveness, could also occur as a matter of course for all projects by including cultural responsiveness as a criterion in assignment rubrics.

Teachers may use our lesson planning rubric (see online supplemental material) to determine whether they are intentionally planning for a culturally responsive mindset and ensuring that all students have the opportunity to learn the skills and knowledge found in music class. We developed this rubric for music educators with additional culturally responsive considerations posited by Aguilar-Valdez (2015). We concede that not all lesson plans can be all things to all people. However, if a music educator reviews their lesson plans over the course of a longer period of time and continually sees little intentionality toward implementing culturally responsive teaching, then a greater effort should be made to allow for an evolving pedagogy in their classroom.

In the lesson plan rubric example, we have bolded the items we believe reflect a culturally responsive lens. In the section concerning objectives, we suggest that teachers intentionally plan content that is based on the students in the room. To this end, we have altered our lesson plan template to require a listing of student assets as the first section of the plan with the intention that this information will inform all other components. For example, a music teacher might employ music that represents various facets, or the intersection of various facets, of students’ self-identified cultures or ways of engaging with music, thereby validating their prior experiences. Similarly, in the section on procedures, we recommend that music teachers honor that music by teaching it in ways that are authentic to the cultural setting or context. Furthermore, we recommend that music educators account for varied student cultures through their assessment content and process. For example, if the class is focused on a music practice transmitted aurally, opportunity to demonstrate this learning should not rely on written notation or written response formats.

Finally, we added two sections to the rubric to help educators focus on culturally responsive teaching and honor student assets and communities. Meeting standards for these criteria would ensure that students work collaboratively and share their own music learning and understanding. In the final section of the rubric, which addresses equity and making connections, we encourage teachers to intentionally make space for musics and voices from a wide array of perspectives, while also forming connections to students’ contexts and lives outside of the school.

Music teachers might facilitate self-reflection and personal growth by asking students to share perceptions about their classroom experiences. These questions might include (1) Did this lesson incorporate music enjoyed by you or your family members? (2) Did the composers or performers of the music shared represent me in some way? (3) Did I learn the music in class the way I learn it at home or in the community? MTEs could encourage preservice teachers to use both these reflection questions and the lesson planning rubric to inform their practicum experiences. In applying the CRPACK model, MTEs must acknowledge that it may not be possible to reduce every component to a prescribed set of observable behaviors, as this would run counter to the diversity found within classroom contexts and among teachers and students. It is our hope, however, that in suggesting how CRPACK might be operationalized, MTEs may have a more concrete point of entry for integrating this model into their practice.

Examples of Practicum Experiences

Authentic context teaching is an important and highly valued element of preservice teacher development (Bauer & Berg, 2001; Haston & Russell, 2012; Schmidt, 2013). Ideally, music education students would have experience teaching in a variety of public classroom settings with a diverse student population. If a diverse student population exists close to an institution, one can strive to connect with those settings for practicum teaching. If not, one might seek immersive experiences such as those documented in Emmanuel (2003) or Burton et al. (2013).

MTEs might also consider teaching settings outside of the public school environment. For example, one might connect service-learning opportunities with methods coursework, such as working with a local cultural center, a police athletic league site, or Head Start programs. Alternatively, universities might connect with the homeschooling and unschooling communities for music teaching opportunities. Although the structure of these environments might differ from the public school environment, they are rich with opportunities to learn about children and their personal, cultural, and musical assets. Engagement with varied learning structures would also provide fodder for broader philosophical discussions about schooling, education, and the values of individual families.

Regardless of the level of diversity in the classroom population, MTEs can lead students to begin practicum teaching preparation with a focus on the children they will teach using the broad range of musics that students engage with, experience, and enjoy. Knowing the students, a core principle of CRE, can take many forms such as gathering demographic data about the school, district, and community, or driving and/or walking through the surrounding neighborhood of the school. For example, in preparation for work in our general music methods course, preservice teachers read an ethnography describing one of the districts in which we work. They then map the possible identities of several children present in the practicum classroom to think through how students’ intersectionality positions them on a continuum of oppression or privilege. The students then make several observations of the music classroom in which they will teach with a focus on acquiring information about student backgrounds, interests, and skill level prior to teaching the children themselves. When preservice teachers are unable to observe prior to teaching or gather demographic information about the children, or are teaching in classrooms that do not allow for an assessment of music interests and abilities (i.e., little musicking or student input is seen when observing), professors might select narratives with transferability potential that shed light on the emic perspective of a particular life/education experience. As another form of data gathering, MTEs in edTPA-required states may consider addressing the “Context for Learning” document for all partnership work as a structure for collecting practicum student information and to build familiarity with the document prior to student teaching.

Acquiring knowledge of students is a necessary first step in preparing to teach. By referencing multiple points of data, preservice teachers may explore the complexity involved in knowing students and, hopefully, avoid assumptions or stereotypes that can arise from deficit views or a lack of recognizing students’ intersectionality. Practicum teachers would then use this knowledge of students to teach to and through their music strengths and to raise students’ sociopolitical consciousness as it relates to music.

Implications for Research

An obvious starting point to using the CRPACK model in research would be to test the validity and utility of the CRPACK model itself. Following the example of Barnett and Hodson’s (2001) methodology, one might use the model to analyze interview data collected from music teachers and MTEs to identify “examples of the components of teachers’ knowledge postulated in our framework, to scrutinize their connections to the other components, and to ascertain whether there are examples of teachers’ knowledge that do not fit the framework, or lie outside it” (p. 441). Once validity and utility are established, the CRPACK model may be used as a theoretical framework for analysis of various types of data.

Concomitantly, explorations of the application of the CRPACK framework in practice could also be a fitting continuation of this work. As Ladson-Billings (1995b) noted when presenting her theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, “Research grounded in the practice of exemplary teachers will form a significant part of the knowledge base on which we build teacher preparation” (p. 483). Well-crafted, rigorous case studies of exemplary teachers using their CRPACK would help illuminate how the model comes to life in the classroom. Examples of CRPACK in action also might make this conceptual model more tangible and transferable for preservice and inservice teachers.

Conclusion

As the personal and musical demographics of school-age children and preservice teachers continue to change, evolve, and grow, it will behoove MTEs to rethink how they engage students beyond what they might have experienced in their own education. By using culturally responsive pedagogical/andragogical context knowledge to honor the musics and cultures that students bring with them to the classroom, and promoting self-directed/heutagogical learning, music educators will better serve students’ diverse music preferences and ways of knowing. Having additional research frameworks, such as the model proposed in this article, may also be a means of facilitating such work. As preservice music educators gain greater awareness, understanding, and capability in CRPACK, they may be better suited to meet the needs of 21st-century students, thus mitigating unwanted teacher attrition or migration, which can lead to better student outcomes as well as a more engaging and enjoyable music learning experience for all.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_1057083721993738 – Supplemental material for Culturally Responsive Pedagogical/Andragogical Context Knowledge: A Conceptual Model for Music Education

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jmt-10.1177_1057083721993738 for Culturally Responsive Pedagogical/Andragogical Context Knowledge: A Conceptual Model for Music Education by Vanessa L. Bond and Joshua A. Russell in Journal of Music Teacher Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Vanessa L. Bond

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abril

C. R.

(2009). Responding to culture in the instrumental programme: A teacher’s journey. Music Education Research, 11(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802699176

Aguilar-Valdez

J. R.

(2015). Rubric for cultural responsive lessons/assignments. Westminster TIDES.

Barnett

Hodson

(2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1017

Bauer

W. I.

Berg

M. H.

(2001). Influences on instrumental music teaching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 150, 53–66. www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319099

Bautista

Yau

Wong

(2017). High-quality music teacher professional development: A review of the literature. Music Education Research, 19(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1249357

Blaschke

L. M.

Brindley

(2011). Establishing a foundation for reflective practice: A case study of learning journal use. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning. www.researchgate.net/publication/253650847_Establishing_a_foundation_for_reflective_practice_A_case_study_of_learning_journal_use

Blaschke

L. M.

(2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutgogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 56–72. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2113

Blaschke

L. M.

Hase

(2016). Heutagogy: A holistic framework for creating twenty-first-century self-determined learners. In Gros, Kinshuk

Maina

(Eds.), The future of ubiquitous learning: Learning designs for emerging pedagogies (pp. 25–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47724-3_2

Bond

V. L.

(2015, May). Musical identity podcasts: A culturally responsive practice. Mountain Lake Colloquium [Session presentation]. Mountain Lake Colloquium, Pembroke, VA.

10.

Bond

V. L.

(2017). Culturally responsive education in music education: A literature review. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 153–180.

11.

Bond

V. L.

Russell

J. A.

(2019). Music teacher educator perceptions of culturally responsive teaching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 221, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.221.0007

12.

Brown-Jeffy

Cooper

J. E.

(2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65–84. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ914924.pdf

13.

Burton

S. L.

Westvall

Karlsson

(2013). Stepping aside from myself: Intercultural perspectives on music teacher education. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083712471198

14.

Carlsen

(1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In Gess-Newsome

Lederman

N. G.

(Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 133–144). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_5

15.

Clandinin

D. J.

(1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers’ classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15(4), 361–385. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179683

16.

Dewey

(1910). How we think. Heath. https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000

17.

Eberle

J. H.

(2013). Lifelong learning. In Hase

Kenyon

(Eds.), Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action (pp. 145–157). Bloomsbury.

18.

Emmanuel

D. T.

(2003). An immersion field experience: An undergraduate music education course in intercultural competence. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 13(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/10570837030130010105

19.

Fitzpatrick

K. R.

(2011). A mixed methods portrait of urban instrumental music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(3), 229–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411414912

20.

Foucault

(1992). The history of sexuality: Vol. 2. The use of pleasure. Penguin.

21.

Geddis

A. N.

(1993). Transforming subject-matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150605

22.

Grossman

P. L.

(1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.

23.

Hammond

(2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.

24.

Hase

Kenyon

(2013). Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action. Bloomsbury.

25.

Haston

Russell

J. A.

(2012). Turning into teachers: Influences of authentic context learning experiences on occupational identity development of preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(4), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411414716

26.

Kenner

Weinerman

(2011). Adult learning theory: Applications to non-traditional college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2011.10850344

27.

Knowles

M. S.

(1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York Association Press.

28.

Knowles

M. S.

(1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED084368.pdf

29.

Knowles

M. S.

(1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (rev. and updated). Cambridge Adult Education. www.umsl.edu/~henschkej/articles/a_The_%20Modern_Practice_of_Adult_Education.pdf

30.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

31.

Ladson-Billings

(1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675

32.

Ladson-Billings

(1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

33.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

34.

Larrivee

(2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/713693162

35.

Lind

V. R.

McKoy

C. L.

(2016). Culturally responsive teaching in music education: From understanding to application. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747279

36.

McKoy

C. L.

(2013). Effects of selected demographic variables on music student teachers’ self-reported cross-cultural competence. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60(4), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429412463398

37.

McPherson

M. L.

(2016). Who gives a hot about heutagogy? Self-determined learning in an online Master of Science program in palliative care [Final paper]. University of Maryland.

38.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

39.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/0.3102/0013189X12441244

40.

Robinson

N. R.

(2017). Developing a critical consciousness for diversity and equity among preservice music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(3), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1057083716643349

41.

Russell

J. A.

(2012). The short and long-term career plans of secondary music educators: Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 191, 61–80. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.191.0061

42.

Schmidt

(2013). Transition from student to teacher: Preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 23(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083712469111

43.

Schulman

L. S.

(1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

44.

Schulman

L. S.

(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

45.

Schön

D. A.

(1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. Teachers College Press.

46.

Shaw

J. T.

(2015). “Knowing their world”: Urban choral music educators’ knowledge of context. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(2), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415584377

47.

Shaw

J. T.

(2016). Pedagogical context knowledge: Revelations from a week in the life of itinerant urban music educators. Music Education Research, 20(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1238062

48.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. State University of New York Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/4129631

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB