Being the Change: Music Teachers’ Self-Reported Changes in Mindset and Practice

Abstract

Music educators sometimes enter the workforce un(der)prepared to design and implement inclusive instruction. The purpose of this descriptive interview study was to explore practicing teachers’ self-reported changes in mindset and practice as they worked to become more inclusive. Participants (N = 20) were music educators with between 1 and 17 years of teaching experience. All participants taught some combination of preK–12 students in general music, choir, band, orchestra, jazz, and other music classes in 10 states. We present qualitative analysis from two sets of interviews concerning self-reported changes in mindsets and teaching practices. We conclude with implications of this study for practicing teachers who wish to enact more equitable and just classroom practices.

Keywords

inclusive practices music education music teacher education social justice teacher change

The multifaceted and intersectional nature of human diversity means that music educators encounter students of differing abilities, who come from a variety of cultures and socioeconomic groups, and who express a spectrum of genders and affectional orientations. Some music educators have grappled with how to create learning environments that are healthy and musically enriching for each student (DeLorenzo, 2015). In this descriptive interview study, we explored changes in practice and mindset that prekindergarten (preK) through Grade 12 music educators reported implementing when they decided to become more inclusive and socially just. For the purposes of this article, we defined inclusive practices as classroom-based efforts to increase access to music education for students with various socioeconomic, racial, religious, cultural, gender, sexuality, and ability-based characteristics. We defined social justice as mindsets or actions creating or contributing to a process toward equity through structural/institutional change.

Review of Literature

Theorists and researchers have explored the nature of—and established the need for—social justice in music education (Benedict et al., 2015; DeLorenzo, 2015). Their work has suggested that social justice processes in preK–12 music classrooms could include the following: (a) restoring silenced or omitted historical and cultural voices (Kindall-Smith et al., 2011); (b) enabling entry into music education at all levels and working to meet individual learning needs (Hammel et al., 2016); (c) addressing the effects of gender diversity on music teaching and learning (Palkki, 2015); (d) increasing access for students from different social classes and locations (Bates, 2011); (e) implementing culturally responsive pedagogy (Lind & McKoy, 2016); and (f) designing creative projects and incorporating social aspects of music making (Burnard, 2008). Social justice processes in music education have varied by context, focused on individual student abilities and interests, and required increased listening and responsiveness to students and families.

Despite the availability of resources, “most preservice music teachers are not equipped with the skills and teaching disposition required to navigate the social and cultural facets they will encounter” (Robinson, 2016, p. 22). Practicing teachers have agreed, reporting a lack of preparation to effectively teach students with diverse cultural backgrounds (Scherler, 2005), varying abilities (Nabb & Balcetis, 2010), and across the gender spectrum (Silveira & Goff, 2016). Although social justice “has become a buzzword in teacher education,” McDonald (2007, p. 2047) noted a lack of evidence verifying how the concept of social justice is manifested in the work of teacher education practitioners. In Salvador and Kelly-McHale’s (2017) survey, music teacher educators (N = 361) reported a variety of perspectives on social justice. Although many respondents indicated social justice was an important topic for preservice music educator preparation, others regarded it as outside of their job responsibilities, outside of their expertise, unnecessary at the undergraduate level, or impossible given program constraints.

Culp and Salvador (In Press) found that music teacher education programs were inconsistent in their provision of coursework that specifically addressed teaching music for diverse populations. Of 156 responding music teacher education programs, about one third (n = 53) required a broad course for diverse learners, 56 required a course about students with exceptionalities, and 36 required a course on culturally responsive teaching. Although 61.9% of undergraduate programs (n = 96) indicated their teacher certification programs integrated teaching diverse learners throughout coursework, qualitative analysis revealed few programs in which intentional systems such as curriculum mapping guided this integration. Instead, the purported integration consisted only of courses offered outside the music program, took place in one or more isolated course(s) within music education, and/or was dictated by instructor interest.

Inservice Teachers Adopting Inclusive Practices

Graduate education and professional development could present opportunities to ameliorate the aforementioned lack of preparation and also to encourage critical thinking about inclusion and social justice in music education. Through readings, discussion, and journaling, participants in Bradley et al.’s (2007) graduate course on race in music education grappled with their whiteness, going through stages of denial, frustration, and acceptance on their way to renewed commitments to social justice. Salvador et al. (2020) interviewed 22 graduate students from a large Midwestern university who took a Philosophy of Music Education course. Employing constructivist grounded theory, the question “What processes helped teachers reexamine or change beliefs or practices?” emerged as most salient. The authors proposed a grounded theory of learning processes for practicing teachers (see online supplementary Appendix A). Primary components of the theory included feeling togetherness, buying in, grappling with difficult material, vulnerability and discomfort, emotional intensity, and stories. Salvador et al. did not examine or report in detail the participants’ proposed changes in mindset or actions that resulted from this transformative experience. The need for the current study emerged through the realization that specific examples of changes in mindset or actions could prove useful to practicing teachers seeking to move toward a more inclusive teaching practice.

Purpose and Guiding Questions

Since music teacher education may not fully prepare undergraduates entering the field of music teaching to create inclusive instructional environments or to embark on social justice processes, practicing teachers interested in justice, equity, and access must often seek their own opportunities to learn about more inclusive mindsets and practices. The purpose of this descriptive interview study was to explore practicing teachers’ self-reported changes in mindset and practice as they worked to become more inclusive. Specifically: What did participants try or change within their schools or classrooms? How did they perceive the impact of these changes? What were their plans for continuing inclusive practice and social justice-as-process?

Method

We used a descriptive interview study design and qualitative data analysis techniques to offer insight about a specific issue (Stake, 2000) and drew on existing interviews from a previous study (Salvador, et al., 2020) coupled with a new set of follow-up interviews. Salvador et al. described the transformative learning process of how participants decided to change their teaching practice to become more inclusive, just, and equitable. Study participants were all students in MUS 8XX, a three-credit Philosophy of Music Education seminar in a master’s degree program at a large Midwestern university. Of 22 participants in the original study, 20 participated in follow-up interviews for this study. Participants were music educators with between 1 and 17 years of teaching experience. All participants taught some combination of preK–12 students in general music, choir, band, orchestra, jazz, and other music classes in 10 states. Similar to music education as a profession (Elpus, 2015), nearly all participants were white; one was African American and one was Filipino American. For more information about the study participants, please see supplementary Online Table 1.

Four of the participants acted as interviewers for the current study, and the course professor was lead researcher for both studies. We viewed interviews as a process in which the interviewer and participant co-constructed conversations based on shared experiences (Roulston, 2013), and throughout data analysis we sought to be reflexive and transparent concerning the subjectivity of researchers (Merriam, 1998). For more information about the interview protocol, see online supplementary Appendix B.

Data for the current study included interview transcripts from Salvador et al. and follow-up interviews, comprising a collection of data from more than 20 participant voices represented in over 40 interviews. The breadth and depth of the actions the participants described in their original interviews (Salvador, et al., 2020) was the impetus for this follow-up study, because reporting in detail on these data and their implications for teachers was beyond the scope of the first study. We began the current study by returning to a data table we created in analyzing the original interviews, titled “Actions Table.” The original columns in the Actions Table were as follows: (a) tried/changed, (b) how did it go, (c) thinking about, and (d) noticed. Prior to conducting the follow-up interview, the interviewer read the participant’s initial interview transcript, adding details from the transcript to the Actions Table as needed. We recorded data from the follow-up interviews by creating four more columns on the Actions Table: (e) follow-up (outcomes of each action or plan a participant had described), (f) additional actions, (g) future plans, and (h) notes. Each coauthor independently analyzed across all participants within each category column, using constant comparison to “consolidat[e], reduc[e], and interpret what people have said and what the researcher has seen and read” (Merriam, 1998, p. 178). This procedure included carefully reading the text, summarizing into themes, and continually revising and refining these themes, also noting exemplars and outliers. Then, we met to compare our individual analyses and identify the most robust themes and group them into overarching categories. Four additional participants verified the trustworthiness and authenticity of categories and themes. For more detail on data analysis procedures, see online supplementary Appendix B.

Results

Analysis of self-reported data revealed four categories: (a) Actions, (b) Mindsets and Dispositions, (c) Outcomes, and (d) Grappling Through the Process. In this section, we describe each category and illustrate themes within categories using exemplars. We selected exemplars representing diverse teaching contexts, grade levels, and content, and sought to illustrate the variety of changes participants described in response to socioeconomic, racial, religious, cultural, gender, sexuality, and ability-based differences.

Actions: What Did Participants Do (or Plan to Do) Differently?

Our analysis of reported actions revealed three themes: Interacting with Students, Structural/Curricular Changes, and Plans for the Future. Interacting with students described the verbal, nonverbal, and written communications that comprise teacher-student relationships. Structural/curricular changes described changes to curriculum, materials, classroom practices, entry requirements, schedules, and unwritten expectations. We included Plans for the future as a theme in this Actions category because, for each plan a participant shared, (an)other participant(s) had already enacted similar or identical actions. Given the variety of context- and content-specific actions, we included a list of reported actions and plans as online supplementary Appendix C.

Interacting With Students

Participants described being more open with their students, particularly in relation to discussions around topics of social justice. Chelsea reported “taking more time with my kids about topics other than music. I feel the need to . . . listen to the[m] . . . research if I have to, and then carry on a discussion.” For example, Chelsea’s students shared worries about deportation of their loved ones, and she described ongoing efforts toward relationship-building among Anglo students, bilingual Latinx U.S. citizens, and Hispanic newcomers. Participants also discussed increasing awareness of and efforts to foster student voice and choice in the classroom. Allison “added an arranging project—we’re going to take 1 day a week and work in small groups to arrange a song of the students’ choice.” While adding an assignment could function as a structural or curricular change, Allison’s primary goal of the arranging project was to give students the opportunity to interact creatively with her, with music, and with each other, using music of their choice, rather than music she had selected for them, as would be typical in a performance ensemble setting.

Structural/Curricular Changes

Participants adjusted audition practices, increased the amount of time spent on composition and arranging, selected repertoire with the intention of including underrepresented groups or reflecting student identities, and changed assessment practices. The variety of teaching/learning environments likely led to diversity in the changes reported. Wes stopped using chair placements, ensured that students without private lessons had the opportunity to play first part, and rotated part assignments. Morgan revised her pep band attendance policy to allow students with jobs more flexibility to participate. Casey implemented universal design within her general music classroom, including visual schedules and a calm down corner.

Plans for the Future

Analysis of follow-up interviews revealed that future plans were similar or identical to what other participants shared as actions. Participants began with different dispositions and experiences, and they came from and returned to teaching different content in a variety of school contexts. Some participants reported initial focus on reducing ability-based barriers, while others worked on economic barriers, and still others integrated culturally responsive pedagogies and/or reached out to underrepresented groups. At the time of follow-up interviews, participants who started with one of these often reported turning to another. Thus, asking about future plans did not necessarily reveal new information when considering all participants as a case. Moreover, when asked about plans for the future, many participants described an intent to reflect on, refine, or expand changes they had already tried, pointing to a long-term process of change. Participants also revealed continued grappling with ideas from graduate school, as when Elizabeth mused, “I love ‘Svatba.’ I would love to delve into . . . women’s rights using this piece. It also challenges my hesitation to explore music of other cultures. I don’t know. I’m still nervous about it.”

Mindsets and Dispositions: What Were the Internal Changes?

All participants described changes in mindset and disposition, and references to internal changes occurred across interview questions. Mindset refers to a person’s established set of attitudes (“Mindset,” n.d.), and Disposition refers to a person’s inherent quality of mind or character (“Disposition,” n.d.). Within this category, we identified four themes: Increased Intentionality and Purpose, Awareness of Inequality and Injustice, Reaching Beyond a Comfort Zone, and Valuing the Individual Student.

Increased Intentionality and Purpose

Participants noted an increasing consciousness of what they said while they taught, of the impacts of what they said or did not say, and of their sense of purpose in teaching. Participants were more able to articulate their beliefs and values to themselves and others, and to align their practices with those beliefs. Patrick stated, “the big change is that when talking about inclusive behavior and advocating, especially for minorities in our community, I am more specific in the consequences of exclusive behavior and also the rationale for forbidding exclusive behavior.” Increased intentionality and purpose also took the form of thinking more strategically and broadly about practices and interactions.

Awareness of Inequality and Injustice

Josie, a White woman, described how her ideas about social justice had changed.

“Tolerance” . . . was never something I thought about. . . . People who are tolerant feel like there isn’t a problem, because they are tolerant. But that’s really not enough in education. . . . If you’re just tolerant you do a disservice.

Tessa, a White woman, voiced similar thoughts about how her perceptions changed when she returned to teaching after graduate study. “I just started to notice certain things around my campus, where I thought, ‘OK, this is white supremacy at work here.’” For many participants, increased awareness of inequality and injustice was a catalyst toward specific actions, such as Tessa’s decision to cultivate relationships with black students and their families so that she would not contribute to the disproportionate rate of disciplinary referrals for black students at her school.

Reaching Beyond a Comfort Zone

A dispositional change occurred when participants reached beyond a comfort zone and shifted away from perfectionism and control. Erin shared,

I think [perfectionism] is really pervasive in music teachers. We only want to teach music that we’re comfortable with. . . . What’s been perfected in conservatories . . . made us good musicians and we like it but it’s not necessarily going to be the best thing for our students. [later] So I wrote a rap unit. . . . And I actually [taught] that last semester. It got me out of my comfort zone . . . I still teach a lot of what I’m comfortable with. But slowly I’m adding to my repertoire that I’m good at teaching.

As a result of their graduate work, participants discussed relinquishing control and embracing vulnerability in their classrooms with their students. Chelsea revealed, “learning to sort of be imperfect in front of my kids, or in front of an administrator observing, has been very scary and very challenging. But like I said, it’s been a huge learning opportunity.” Participants described vulnerability as a necessary precursor to making changes such as talking with colleagues about social justice, making changes that broke with tradition, and/or addressing exclusion.

Valuing the Individual Student

Participant discourses shifted toward seeing each individual within the group, toward balancing individual and group needs, and toward valuing students as whole beings. Laura, who taught 800 students each week, remarked, “[MUS 8XX] strengthened my efforts to explore the needs and interests of the individual student.” This change was particularly impactful for participants who previously thought about “the band” or “the class” as opposed to individual students. Mike commented,

I did change a lot of things. . . . To constantly move from teacher- to subject- to student-centered, to making sure that everything I do . . . has meaning and is relative in some way to the students.

Participants often connected internal shifts toward valuing individual students with reported actions, as when Morgan’s increased knowledge of student needs led her to start offering meals at evening rehearsals.

Outcomes: How Did It Go?

Participants consistently reported positive experiences and sustained resolve to continue equity and justice-oriented changes, even as they felt vulnerable and out of their comfort zone. Allison wrote, “It’s been interesting and I want to do more of this—I’m getting to know a totally different side of my students and it’s led to some meaningful discussions.” Our analysis revealed four outcomes: Growth as a Teacher and Person, Improved Classroom Climate, Enhanced Community Connections, and Increased Ability to Advocate/Support Changes.

Growth as a Teacher and Person

Participants described personal growth resulting from their work to create inclusive instruction. In her first interview, Josie observed, “I have to challenge myself to continually grow into the teacher I feel my students deserve. I have to make myself vulnerable to self-criticism and seek and internalize advice from my colleagues.” Her second interview revealed, “I continue to set high standards for myself, but I am realistic, rely on others for support, and am better at assessing how things are going and making plans to improve without tearing myself down.” This mixture of personal growth and improvement as an educator was a consistent thread across interviews and seemed to be an outcome of graduate study in general, the philosophy course in particular, and the intervening years of teaching experience. However, participants also experienced pain and uncertainty, as when Elizabeth felt “ . . . like a terrible teacher as I thought of everything I was learning and considering versus what was actually happening in my classroom against what actually could happen in my classroom.”

Improved Classroom Climate

Participants described more relaxed interactions, a sense of calm, and increased trust among students and with the teacher. Jeffrey started a student meditation club before school, and plans to add one for teachers. Chelsea’s students brought improvements to her attention, “[a student] said, ‘I don’t know what you did, but this has been so much better this year. I feel more comfortable. I feel like I’m learning more.’” Matt wrote, “I feel that my students are experiencing greater success as I continue to discover that which is truly important to them.” Perhaps participants’ attention to inclusive practices and focus on students as individuals resulted in this improvement in classroom climate.

Enhanced Community Connections

Participants reported feeling more connected to their communities after enacting change. Elizabeth mentioned, “I’ve heard from a couple of teachers that they really appreciate some of my repertoire choices this year and that the messages really resonated.” Jeffrey said, “by talking with parents and communicating with them, I’m really starting to understand more about [neighborhood], and that has helped me create lesson plans that are more reflective of the community.” As Jeffrey’s experience illustrates, increased family and community connections not only improve relationships, they can also improve instruction.

Increased Ability to Advocate/Support Changes

Participants reported advocating for changes by providing rationales and demonstrating benefits for students. Zoey’s decision to eliminate audition requirements for curricular choirs was controversial with some singers and their families. Zoey explained,

my philosophy that I teach in a public building, and I feel that music should be accessible to everyone . . . I do have auditioned groups outside of school—this was a response to students who want to be in a select or auditioned ensemble.

Other participants felt similarly empowered to support the changes that they had made in their classroom when talking with students, colleagues, families, and administrators.

Grappling Through the Process

The final category encompassed three themes pertaining to the experience of being a teacher who is grappling with inclusion, equity, and justice and who is in the process of enacting change. Although participants reported being pleased with changes they had made, and said changes went well, the experience of enacting change was sometimes uncomfortable or vulnerable, and graduate study framed by social justice was frustrating for some students. Laura wrote,

I grew up a lower-middle class white girl in the affirmative action era and have been denied opportunities because of my “whiteness.” As such, I tend to bring my personal baggage to this topic, and think that social justice by now should be a no brainer. I find myself asking why a balance of composer gender, international and domestic cultures, and time periods isn’t already happening across music education.

As many participants embraced a process toward social justice, they wanted support. Participants also discussed the impact of politics on their interactions and the changes they were making. Finally, participants reported reconsidering their priorities and their view of themselves as teachers. We labeled these themes: Being Supported Through the Process of Change, Role of Politics, and Reconceptualizing Good Teaching.

Being Supported Through the Process of Change

Participants reported feeling barely able to maintain their day-to-day teaching responsibilities, which made change difficult to contemplate. Wes worried that he did not have enough time to make all the changes he intended, stating, “I haven’t changed completely yet; I’m still working on my shift.” Relationships formed within the graduate cohort meant participants had colleagues to lean on, and several participants reached out to professors from the graduate program with specific questions or seeking support. For some participants, the interviews for this study functioned as support. Chelsea said interview conversations were “a good experience . . . [to get] feedback about how I’m doing, especially as a white female in a mostly Hispanic school . . . I think it’s better than what it was, but I don’t know.” Between the initial study and the follow-up study, most participants returned for their second or third summer of graduate study. Additional study, combined with opportunities to strengthen existing relationships and forge new ones, supported persistence in the process toward more inclusive and just teaching practice.

Outside of the graduate program, participants mentioned talking with other teachers and with administrators about their efforts toward more inclusive practice, and finding varying levels of support from these colleagues. Matt wrote,

[T]opics that interested me . . . are not of interest to many of my colleagues. [However], sharing some of what I experienced and learned in the course has helped me develop a more meaningful relationship with . . . my administrator who has, in turn, shown increased interest in the success of my students.

Most participants reported needing music content-specific support about ideas for inclusive practices, and they wanted feedback on their teaching, including critique and suggestions for improvement. However, mentors and administrators lacked necessary expertise to provide this support and/or feedback. Some participants reported piloting new ideas with students they thought might be supportive. For Wes, this was his top group because he felt most comfortable with them; for Tessa, it was her nonselect group because that was where she struggled. Megan tried out changes in her general music classes, where she felt she had more latitude to change than with her ensembles. Erin echoed this idea, stating, “you get a lot of freedom in general music to do whatever you want.”

Role of Politics

MUS 8XX coincided with the 2016 presidential campaign, and the election took place just before the first set of interviews. Although we did not ask about politics, participants described impacts of the elections on their students and in their classrooms and mentioned interacting with family and friends concerning the election. The coincidence of graduate study with the presidential election may have made social justice materials more obviously applicable for some participants, and they reported noticing and addressing issues using skills they had developed during graduate study. Josie remarked, “I had more tools in my toolbox. . . . It made me more able to engage in conversations with other people . . . made me feel more grounded in my beliefs and philosophy overall.”

Several participants who taught in politically conservative school districts emphasized the need to carefully frame social justice issues. Elizabeth wrote about telling her students,

The point of education is not to just give you things that you agree with. It’s to challenge you. . . . In that way I am making a political statement. . . . But I’m not giving any kind of opinion. That’s the tightrope walk . . . that all of us in public schools face. [later] My district still needs to catch up with the notion that music is meant for more than just enjoyment; that it can often carry very powerful messages that SHOULD be discussed.

Patrick pointed out that his students value ideals of equality and justice, but that some think social justice equates to liberal politics. Therefore, he related that talking openly about values has helped his students arrive at a shared place. However, several participants shared concerns about keeping their jobs in conservative school districts if their interest in social justice made them seem too liberal.

Reconceptualizing Good Teaching

Participants seemed to move toward thinking more critically and strategically as inclusive educators. For example, Robin’s critical lens had her “struggling with how to address the sketchy past of . . . songs in our folk music canon.” Responses demonstrated awareness of the nuances inherent in inclusive processes, as when Matt reflected on cultural diversity among his Mormon students, or when Zoey noticed discrimination on the basis of invisible diversities in ability, socioeconomic status, and social-emotional functioning. Participants grappled with finding a way in to teaching new repertoires. Maria explained, “I would be scared to bring Indian classical music to my kids because . . . they participate in Indian classical ensembles and so . . . I would want them to bring it to ME because they know it better than I do.” In contrast, Erin described teaching a rap unit.

As a white woman who’s classically trained . . . I just had to be really honest with [my students]. I’m a good musician, but . . . you probably know this genre of music better than I do. There were awkward moments . . . [like] when I mispronounced FloRida . . . the vice principal was in there . . . and he yelled with the students how to pronounce it.

Erin felt vulnerable, but, like other participants, she was reconceptualizing good teaching as creating space for students to learn the required curriculum using music that is enjoyable and interesting for them. Matt wrote,

I’m surprising myself with how much time I devote to things other than simply rehearsing music (having critical conversations, allowing time for kids to be vulnerable with each other, etc.) and I feel much more confident about the musical achievement and ability of all the ensembles this year. There seems to be a higher level of buy in.

Matt’s words reflect stories many participants shared. They initially feared that adopting more inclusive practices would result in reduced music quality, but they reported that selecting music based on student interest and/or culture, taking time to build an inclusive community, and adding activities such as composition and arranging increased student buy-in and quality of musicianship. In undertaking a process of change toward more inclusive and just music education, participants reported that their ability to achieve desired outcomes was enhanced.

Discussion

In this article, we analyzed interviews in which practicing music educators described adopting more inclusive and just mindsets and practices. Teachers from locations around the United States who taught a variety of music content in preK–12 settings reported on their efforts, first 4 to 6 months after completion of a graduate-level course called Philosophy of Music Education, and then 1 year later after completion of core graduate coursework. In addition to changes in their classroom practices, participants recounted ongoing intellectual grappling, personal growth, and increased connections with students and communities. In this discussion, we focus on the implications of this study for preK–12 music educators.

Limitations

Several limitations may affect interpretation of this study. Five participants changed jobs between the initial and follow-up interviews, creating challenges and opportunities in their work to become more inclusive and just music educators. All data were self-reported; we did not observe instruction. It is possible that participants overstated actions or changes in mindset, especially given the power dynamic of their professor leading the study. However, we also cannot assume that participant interviews comprehensively described all actions toward more socially just or inclusive teaching practices. Several participants revealed actions in response to the question, “Is there anything else you want to tell me?” that they neglected to mention when directly asked earlier in the interview. The effects of the power imbalance may have been mitigated by study design and recruitment occurring after course conclusion and by utilizing student co-researchers. Moreover, professor and student coresearch could be considered a strength in the study, because our immersion in courses and in the subsequent interviews (as interviewers and interviewed) could increase trustworthiness.

Implications for PreK–12 Music Education and Research

The current study supports assertions in the literature about inclusive practices. Participants reported making changes to repertoire and course content to restore marginalized voices, including trying new materials and practices that were more culturally diverse (Kindall-Smith et al., 2011). Particularly in schools with high proportions of minoritized students, participants described trying to become more aware of and responsive to student cultures, including by reaching out to families and the community (Lind & McKoy, 2016). Participants reported attempts to make classes more inclusive of genders and sexualities, such as changing the names of ensembles and choosing repertoire that was not heteronormative (Palkki, 2015). Participants actively sought ways to meet individual student needs and include students who had special education labels or who attended alternative education programs (Hammel et al., 2016). In many cases, work toward being more relevant and responsive to student diversities including ability, gender, and culture included involving students in social interactions geared toward creative outcomes such as arranging and composing (Burnard, 2008).

Participants described becoming more able to see evidence of inequality and injustice, and they emphasized the personal experience of grappling with and enacting change. They reported feeling uncomfortable, uncertain, and vulnerable as they explored their teaching practices, learned more about their students and communities, and worked to become more inclusive. They also reported feeling proud, successful, and more connected to students and their communities. Some participants could immediately enact significant changes, and other participants reported being more cautious and strategic—even worrying about job security. Participants felt constrained by systems at school (e.g., scheduling that excluded students in special education) and outside of school (e.g., contests that privilege specific repertoires, performance practices, and teaching methods). Participants felt concern that changes that could potentially be unsuccessful or controversial were risky for them, and placed them in a vulnerable position. They knew what they needed to do to be viewed as successful in the current music teaching paradigm, but had begun to question and problematize the ways in which success often excluded certain students, types of music, or ways of engaging with music.

In a study of music teacher stress in the current era of increased accountability, Shaw (2016) examined the experiences of job stress for four instrumental teachers. While they did not explicitly name perfectionism as one of their stressors, “they all discussed that their high personal expectations made it especially difficult to be viewed as incompetent or less-than-capable in some dimension of their teaching,” even if those dimensions were arbitrary and externally imposed by administrators who did not understand what the music educators were doing (Shaw, 2016, p. 112). Participants in the current study actively chose to make themselves vulnerable by implementing inclusive practices in ways that were appropriate for their own classrooms, schools, administrative, and community relationships, but that still pushed them slightly beyond their current comfort level as teachers. Teachers seeking to engage in this work may need to confront the fact that discomfort, fear, and vulnerability are often part of the process, and that these feelings are normal. Seeking out supportive colleagues in music, other subject areas, or within administration helped participants work through these feelings of vulnerability. Teachers may want to find a colleague or mentor to help them grapple with these ideas and the impact on their practice. Teachers may also find it helpful to form a partnership or cohort with other music educators who can empathize with the unique joys and challenges of music teaching and who can offer meaningful feedback, encouragement, and dialogue throughout the process of working toward becoming a more inclusive educator.

One of the challenges faced by practicing music teachers is the need to advocate for music education in schools. Advocacy is a large part of the role of the National Association for Music Education (2020). Talbot (2018) suggested that “advocacy in our field would not be necessary if the broader population felt the work we did as music teachers represented and reflected their identities and daily lives” (p. 6). Many of the actions toward more inclusive practice described by the participants in this study sought to do just that: represent and reflect the identities and daily lives of students and the communities in which participants taught. Participants experienced improvements in their classroom climate, enhanced connections with their communities, parents, and students, and felt empowered to advocate for their decisions as they worked to more closely align their actions with a philosophy of music for all. Crucially, taking the time to adopt more inclusive practices generally resulted in increased student engagement and musicianship quality, rather than the opposite, as participants initially feared. Teachers may want to consider that inclusive practices could benefit not only their students as individuals, but their program as a whole.

The participants in this study discussed the importance of continuing education and meaningful professional development in their decisions to become more inclusive music educators. Many participants did not anticipate the fact that the ideas and people they encountered would change them; some described initially jaded or cynical attitudes toward the idea of a philosophy class having any real impact on their teaching practice. It was only after participants made the conscious choice to be open to and potentially changed by the ideas they encountered that they were able to experience growth. While the idea that continuing education could induce a change in thinking seems obvious, this disregards the agency required by the learner to genuinely engage in the material. Simply “checking the box” on continuing education to gain tenure or renew licensure is unlikely to result in meaningful changes in practice, and it is our hope in sharing the actions of these participants that practicing teachers may be inspired to make (even small) changes that could have a genuine impact on their students.

Conclusion

This study illustrated self-reported changes in mindsets and practices among teachers engaged in the process of creating more inclusive and just music learning spaces. Taken in isolation, no single participant’s actions were radical or world-changing. Teachers in this study described making fairly significant changes within their classrooms, but they were not as able to challenge or subvert broader systems that marginalize some students (yet). However, every participant said they increased the inclusiveness of their practices. These participants have accepted the personal challenge of contemplating the process of social justice, taking it out of the graduate classroom, and creating it in the world. Doing this entails vulnerability and risk, as teachers leave the safe (if exclusive) status quo on a journey that does not have an end as much as a rich web of music, communities, possibilities, and opportunities.

Supplemental Material

Online_Supplements_Update_19-0026_R3 – Supplemental material for Being the Change: Music Teachers’ Self-Reported Changes in Mindset and Practice

Supplemental material, Online_Supplements_Update_19-0026_R3 for Being the Change: Music Teachers’ Self-Reported Changes in Mindset and Practice by Karen Salvador, Allison Paetz and Abby Lewin-Zeigler in Update: Applications of Research in Music 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.

ORCID iDs

Karen Salvador

Allison Paetz

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Bates

V. C.

(2011). Preparing rural music teachers: Reflecting on “shared visions.” Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083710377722

Benedict

Schmidt

Spruce

Woodford

(2015). The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199356157.001.0001

Bradley

Golner

Hanson

(2007). Unlearning whiteness, rethinking race issues in graduate music education. Music Education Research, 9(2), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800701384516

Burnard

(2008). A phenomenological study of music teachers’ approaches to inclusive education practices among disaffected youth. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X08089890

Culp

M. E.

Salvador

. (In Press). Music teacher education program practices: Preparing teachers to work with diverse learners. Journal of Music Teacher Education.

DeLorenzo

L. C.

(Ed.). (2015). Giving voice to democracy in music education: Diversity and social justice in the classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725628

Disposition. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disposition

Elpus

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415602470

Hammel

Hickox

Hourigan

(2016). Winding it back: Teaching to individual differences in music classroom and ensemble settings. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190201616.001.0001

10.

Kindall-Smith

McKoy

C. L.

Mills

S. W.

(2011). Challenging exclusionary paradigms in the traditional musical canon: Implications for music education practice. International Journal of Music Education, 29(4), 374–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411421075

11.

Lind

V. R.

McKoy

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

12.

National Association for Music Education. (2020). Advocacy. https://nafme.org/advocacy/

13.

McDonald

M. A.

(2007). The joint enterprise of social justice teacher education. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 2047–2081.

14.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

15.

Mindset. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mindset

16.

Nabb

Balcetis

(2010). Access to music education: Nebraska band directors’ experiences and attitudes regarding students with physical disabilities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(4), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429409353142

17.

Palkki

(2015). Gender trouble: Males, adolescence, and masculinity in the choral context. Choral Journal, 56(4), 24–35. www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua_Palkki/publication/282365123_Gender_Trouble_Males_adolescents_and_masculinity_in_the_choral_context/links/560ea72608aec422d1121829/Gender-Trouble-Males-adolescents-and-masculinity-in-the-choral-context.pdf

18.

Robinson

N. R.

(2016). Developing a critical consciousness for diversity and equity among preservice music teachers. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(3), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083716643349

19.

Roulston

(2013). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288009

20.

Salvador

Kelly-McHale

. (2017). Music teacher educator perspectives on social justice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 6–24. doi:10.1177/0022429417690340

21.

Salvador

Paetz

Tippetts

. (2020). “We all have a little more homework to do:” A Constructivist Grounded Theory of Transformative Learning Processes for Practicing Music Teachers Encountering Social Justice. Journal of Research in Music Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420920630

22.

Scherler

(2005). Elementary music teachers instructing Hispanic English language learners: Reflection on practice [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of North Texas, TX.

23.

Shaw

R. D.

(2016). Music teacher stress in the era of accountability. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(2), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.1005325

24.

Silveira

J. M.

Goff

S. C.

(2016). Music teachers’ attitudes toward transgender students and supportive school practices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416647048

25.

Stake

R. E.

(2000). Case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 237–247). Sage.

26.

Talbot

B. C.

(2018). Introduction. In Talbot

B. C.

(Ed.), Marginalized voices in music education (pp. 1–12). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315225401

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

0.26 MB