This co-authored article (see Appendix I) grew out of the need to explore more deeply how music teacher education programmes respond to the challenges and opportunities that cultural diversity creates. In the first stage of the study that is reported in this article, we used focus group interviews as a method to map the intercultural competence of music teacher educators at the Levinsky College of Education in Tel Aviv and the Sibelius Academy, University of the Arts Helsinki.
One of the leading ideas in the article, and in the research process as a whole, is that reflexive exchange and ‘learning from each other’ (Darling-Hammond &
Lieberman, 2012, p. 169) will increase our understandings of who we are as music teacher educators, including in international contexts. This, in turn, may have an influence on how future music teachers teach (Gay, 2014, p. xiii). This intra- and trans-institutional learning aims for trans-national reflexivity. The article contributes to the research question I of the overall study: How do music teacher educators in the two contexts articulate their own intercultural competence and the competence the programme provides, and how do they perceive the challenges and future needs regarding their competence at an institutional level? The three research questions that guided the research process were: 1) How do music teacher educators in Israel and Finland articulate their own intercultural competences; that is, what kinds of ‘knowledge, skills and attitudes’ (Deardorff, 2006 p. 248) do they need in their work? 2) How do these teacher educators articulate the competences that their programmes provide for the students? 3) How do these teacher educators perceive the challenges and future needs regarding their intercultural competences on an institutional level?
This first-stage study is a multi-sited instrumental case study (Stake, 1995), conducted at two different sites in two different countries. We also followed the principle of “compatibility that does not require comparability” (Strathern, 2004, p. 35); in other words, our aim was not to compare the two contexts, but rather to make use of the richness and commonalities of the two contexts. In all, 11 focus group interviews were conducted, six at the Sibelius Academy (with 15 music teacher educators) and five at the Levinsky College (with 14 music teacher educators).
As a theoretical starting point for the content analysis of the data, we used the framework for intercultural teaching competencies suggested by MacPherson (2010). As part of her study of exploring preservice, in-service, and university
teachers’ collaborative conversations on culture, MacPherson conducted a comprehensive literature review in the field of intercultural teaching, and detected five competence aspects: 1) attitudes; 2) cultural responsiveness; 3) curriculum and instruction; 4) communication and language; and 5) critical perspectives. We used these five areas of competence as the basis for the analysis.
In general, the aspects of interculturality that were most touched upon in the interview data when talking about the music teacher educators’ own intercultural competence included competence in teaching students from different musical backgrounds, music diversity, diversity due to ethnic and religious differences and teaching in different languages. In addition, the consideration of different learning styles as an aspect of teaching was also mentioned. Other aspects that were referenced to a lesser degree included differences in ways of thinking and conceptualizing, and gender issues. Furthermore, attending to the first research question on the music teacher educators’ own intercultural competence, we demonstrated the outcomes of our analysis by categorizing the findings under MacPherson’s five competence aspects. The attitudes that were recognized as central in intercultural interaction included tolerance, openness, acceptance, mutual respect, and empathy. Other identified important skills and abilities included an awareness of the differences and similarities in the learning styles and cultural backgrounds of students, and sensitivity to the experiences of others. Only a few of the music teacher educators could identify how their efforts to recognize and account for the diverse backgrounds of students in the teaching content had changed their courses. Thus, it was challenging to pinpoint how cultural responsiveness manifested in their teaching. However, the teacher educators reported the challenges that religious restrictions created in both contexts in terms of practices, musical repertoire, and communication in class. The religious aspect was also present in the discussion on curriculum and instruction. Music teacher educators in both contexts recognized how their students’ reluctance to learn beyond their religious and cultural beliefs can hinder further intercultural learning.
In terms of communication and language, especially in the Israeli context, the Hebrew-speaking teacher educators found it challenging to teach a class where the students’ first language was Arabic. As shown in one of the examples, when the teacher educator lets the students be the experts of their own cultural content, including language, and when they are trusted to make their own choices of, for instance, what content to bring to class, this may create a dialogue and connection between them. Critical perspectives, or “understanding of one’s own power and
privilege” (MacPherson, 2010, p. 273), were scarce in the data. Political dilemmas were mainly discussed in the Israeli context, and they were mostly connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of the interviewed teacher educators thought that the subject of music should be politically neutral.
It was difficult for the interviewed music teacher educators to find answers to the question of what kind of intercultural competence was provided by the programmes. Many of the teacher educators admitted challenges in seeing the bigger picture: how the courses and modules of the programme were constructed, and how their own course was part of that picture. Also, the lack of joint meetings and the large number of part-time teachers made it harder to establish and maintain a knowledge community (Hakkarainen et al., 2011), or conditions where the staff members could “learn from each other” (Darling-Hammond and Lieberman, 2012) in terms of developing their intercultural competence.
Attending to the third research question of the first-stage study, the teacher educators were asked to suggest future needs, and propose suggestions for how their institutions could develop intercultural competence. At both institutions, music teacher educators expressed the need for stronger interaction and better communication, both between departmental faculties and among the staff members of those faculties. They also identified a need for strengthening contacts with the in-service music teachers, in order to have a better understanding of the reality faced by the schools and intercultural challenges in the field. There were also suggestions of including intercultural issues as part of different courses, offering courses that focused inclusively on intercultural issues and challenges, and choosing field practice sites according to the level of cultural diversity represented in that particular school.
In the discussion section of the article, we pinpoint three potential challenges that can be identified in the findings of the study when compared against the research literature of the field. First, the study suggests that there is a need to employ a more holistic perspective when considering intercultural competence in learning institutions. In music teacher education programmes, this would mean going beyond enhancing the musical diversity of the study content and considering the social, emotional, political, and historical aspects as part of intercultural music teaching and learning. Second, the tendency to emphasize individual teacher educators’ responsibility for only taking care of issues of diversity and their own
course content prevents them from perceiving the wider structural barriers that may stand in the way of improvement on intercultural issues. Thus, what this article suggests is that institutions should take responsibility for encouraging staff members to develop critical views on issues of diversity also at a wider, institutional level. The interaction and discussion on the issues and experiences regarding cultural diversity could also reinforce professional learning about ethical issues and enhance the understanding of how power is produced at the institutional level and how music, music education, and music institutions produce social justice - as well as injustice - within their frames. Third, the study confirms the argument put forward by other authors (Gay, 2014; Gollnick, 2008; Mills &
Ballantyne, 2010) that there is a need for issues of diversity to be incorporated in the studies throughout the study programme. In sum, the study indicates that reflection, communication, and collaboration are the key components for creating
“knowledge communities” (Hakkarainen, 2013) and fostering mutual learning among teacher educators, researchers, and other staff members about issues of diversity and the development of intercultural competence, both at the individual and institutional level.