Weekes 1

Micah Weekes

Lori-Anne Dolloff, Darren Hamilton

EMU130Y1

Monday October 10th, 2023

Reflective Report: Constance Mckoy

Constance Mckoy’s article Culturally Responsive Teaching: what it is, and why it’s important in music

education outlines the importance of connecting to students and making music education more about areas of

music that students are interested in outside of the class context.

In summary, Mckoy explains that CRT (Culturally Responsive Teaching) is a strong solution to the

ignorance that teachers and curriculums have previously had towards the fact that every student learns the most

efficiently in a different way. She explains that CRT is the better alternative to the traditional teaching method;

one where students are (1) asked what their musical interests are, then after having made connections from the

students’ preferred music to hints of western classical music, are (2) transitioned into (in the context of this

article and that of EMU130) western classical music— as if to say, “western classical music is the more

important study”.

In the “Learning About Ourselves” subsection, Mckoy mentions that “we teach who we are”, our

approaches to teaching and learning are influenced as much by our own personal experiences, attitudes, and

world views as by our music and education courses. I agree with this. As a student, I can concur that

incorporating personal experiences in teaching is an effective way of either conveying a specific point or

emphasizing the importance of a module or lesson. Another aspect I agree with that Mckoy mentions is that

creating a supportive and welcoming classroom environment is a key factor in optimizing learning.

Psychological well-being is an imperative factor in efficient learning and teaching.

In her introductory section, Constance states: “through a culturally responsive approach to music

teaching, music educators can make significant and meaningful learning connections with students”. As much

as CRT may occasionally be a connective vessel linking classroom lessons with students’ personal lives, as a

student, it seems to me as though this is not always the case. For example, I have been in a couple of lectures
 Weekes 2
that have covered topics related to my family’s country. However, these topics were presented in a distant

manner, almost as if [it’s far away]. If this is how some other countries’ cultures are presented, especially to

those who are not from those countries, I do not quite understand how this can be considered “Culturally

Responsive Teaching”.

Equally in her introductory section is mentioned the necessity of connecting to students’ “preferred mu-

sic”. Firstly, as a jazz student, my “preferred music” is the music I study and hear in my classes, and I know that

my peers in classical also thoroughly enjoy the music we study in class - whether Aboriginal, folk, or anything

in between— students often find the music taught in class to be very enjoyable outside of class. Secondly, I be-

lieve that a teacher can find as many ways as he or she wants to connect to the music that students “prefer and

practice outside of the classroom”, but eventually, they will have to return to the content and music that is re-

lated to, and is, the curriculum that needs to be taught. Hence this seems as though it is quite frankly going back

to the method Mckoy mentions at the beginning of her article— the method where students are asked what mu-

sic they are into and are shown the connections between that music and the music they should be studying

(western classical music).

I disagree with the general postulation of “we need to learn more about our students in order to teach

more effectively.” In my opinion, one can teach students without thinking of their minds as a tabula rasa, all the

while not going so in-depth into their interests. For “[taking] the time to find out what [the] students already

know and can do musically” to be of any importance, I believe professors would have to go about getting to

know every single student, and maybe from there generalizing based on common points - which would be tedi-

ous and brain-bending.

In the “Making Program and Curricular Choices That Are Culturally Responsive” section, Mckoy states

that CRT “calls for a curriculum that reflects the interests and goals of all students […]”. I disagree with this as-

pect. Firstly, to me, CRT should not focus on students’ interests [but instead on opening students’ eyes to cul-

tures that they were not aware of (use the aboriginal music example with the rap)]. One way this can be done is
 Weekes 3
if students from different countries & cultural backgrounds share and interchange, through the context of a

given class, bits and pieces of their culture with one another. This would allow for an eye-opening experience

that every single student can experience, no matter where they are from. This would also be much more logistic-

ally convenient, because— as mentioned earlier— to truly “reflect the interests and goals of all students”, the

professor would have to interrogate every student in the given class, and later generalize the results to determine

what content would be best for the entire class. A such method would be exceptionally time consuming and in-

concise.

In terms of personal experience on the teacher’s side, I have taught students composition and piano in

the past, and as I progressed in my lessons, I quickly began to realize that parts of my musical background, in-

terests, and teaching methods that I have been subject to (the good ones) come out unconsciously and often un-

planned. I can thus concur with Mckoy when she states that when someone teaches, the better they know them-

selves the better and, in my opinion, more effortless their teaching will become.