Content uploaded by Edward C. Warburton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Edward C. Warburton
Content may be subject to copyright.
7
Edward C. Warburton, Ed.D., is in the Theater
Arts Department at the University of California,
Santa Cruz
Correspondence: Edward C. Warburton, Ed.D.,
Theater Arts Center, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz,
California 95064; tedw@ucsc.edu.
Abstract
This essay explores factors influencing high-quality
teaching in dance. The author argues that deficien-
cies in the skills needed to teach the content of
dance (i.e., pedagogical knowledge) pose a bigger
threat to effective instruction than familiarity
with the subject being taught (i.e., content knowl-
edge). The process of learning to teach not only
elucidates the basics of sound pedagogy but also
reveals key ideas and personal beliefs about dance
that engenders better teaching and learning. The
author concludes with suggestions for developing
pedagogical knowledge in dance.
I
enter the dance studio’s reception area. There
is a pleasant buzz of activity in the air. Parents
are smiling, talking quietly as their children
dance in adjacent rooms. I feel like a character out
of Garrison Keillor’s radio broadcast of A Prairie
Home Companion, a bit player in a weekly scene.
Everyone seems above average and I, the under-
cover dance educator, am busy staking out private
dance studios for family and friends. Cautious not
to interrupt or draw attention, I gather brochures
and glance surreptitiously into the dance studios.
The receptionist misses nothing, graciously allow-
ing me a complimentary glimpse at the budding
dancers. Pink feet running in pairs. Pink shoes
stretching into battement tendu. Classical music
drifts through air. A teacher’s warm voice gently ad-
monishes youngsters to dance in time. The uneven
lines, carefree circles, scarves floating and petite
tutus turning, remind me of the pure pleasure of
bodies in motion. Everyone—dance teachers, stu-
dents, and parents alike—look very happy.
On my way out, I catch a snippet of conversa-
tion, one parent whispering, “…very nice and very
patient,” the other replying, “…she really knows her
stuff.” The words follow me outside, reminding me
of the last time I heard talk about dance teaching.
At the National Dance Education Organization’s
annual conference, I participated in a class taught
by an acknowledged expert dance educator. She was
simultaneously teaching class and talking candidly
about the choices she made as she taught. The
range of factors she considered was remarkable.
Each activity was accompanied with explicit ideas
about why and how she was presenting the work.
I recall thinking that she really knew “her stuff.”
The parents’ conversation at the dance studio made
me stop and think again, what is the “stuff ” that
makes a quality teacher so good?
There is a continuing debate in this country
over when someone is (or is not) a good teacher
who knows the right stuff. An increasingly vocal
group of educators has argued that the quality of
the nation’s workforce of teachers is in doubt.
1,2
This group contends that too many teachers have
insufficient knowledge in the subjects they teach.
3,4
Other commentators dispute this notion, instead
stressing a need for deeper understanding of so-
cio-cultural-political contexts and the psychology
Beyond Steps
The Need for Pedagogical Knowledge in Dance
Edward C. Warburton, Ed.D.
8 Journal of Dance Education Volume 8, Number 1 2008
of teaching and learning.
5,6
Everyone agrees that
children deserve competent, properly educated
teachers, but consensus breaks down over how to
accomplish this goal. Most educators concur that
the requisite skills include two broad categories:
1. content knowledge or the familiarity with the
subject being taught and 2. pedagogical knowledge
or the familiarity with techniques for teaching the
subject. A main point of contention revolves around
the appropriate combination of content and peda-
gogical knowledge needed for effective teaching.
For those who argue that the major impediment
to high-quality teaching is a lack of content exper-
tise, deficiencies in content knowledge is thought
to contribute to the increase in low-performing
students and schools. This situation is exacerbated
further, so the reasoning goes, by teacher prepara-
tion programs that underemphasize content and
overemphasize pedagogy. The imbalance could be
redressed, they argue, by allowing qualified college
graduates who “may not have completed course-
work in educational methodology” to receive certifi-
cates allowing them to teach in public schools.
7
The issue of teacher competency in dance has
been addressed largely through the dissemina-
tion of best practices and models of dance in
education. In general, these texts present bal-
anced approaches, with suggestions for content
and pedagogy linked to helpful guides for lesson
planning, implementation and assessment. These
are invaluable resources created by expert danc-
ers and educators. The concern is not the lack of
good resources, but a lack of informed readers. In
contrast to the population of general education
teachers, the few dance teachers in public and
private schools with training in pedagogy are far
outnumbered by those without any exposure to a
formal (or informal) course of study in educational
methods and materials. For years, dance educators
have been making the argument that more, not
less, attention be paid to pedagogical knowledge
for prospective dancers and teachers.
In the past, when I have argued in favor of
mandatory pedagogy courses for students in
postsecondary dance programs, I have based my
arguments on demographics and career prospects.
It is a fact that the vast majority of artists—some
estimates range as high as 90%—who remain in
the arts past college or professional career end up
teaching at least part-time.
8
I have gone so far as
to make it an ethical issue, suggesting that it is
impossible to defend a dance curriculum as caring
about students’ needs when courses in pedagogy
are absent from the list of required courses.
9
The
arguments against this position conform to the
view of those who advocate for content over peda-
gogical knowledge: intensive study in a domain
gives individuals all the information needed for
teaching in it. My timeworn retort has always
been that “steps are necessary but not sufficient
for teaching dance.”
As my thinking and research on this question
has developed, so has my argument expanded be-
yond the “necessary but not sufficient” platitude.
In short, I contend that deficiencies in the skills
needed to teach the content of dance (i.e., pedagogi-
cal knowledge) pose a bigger threat to high-quality
instruction than familiarity with the subject being
taught (i.e., content knowledge). I base my argu-
ment on a series of interrelated points.
First and foremost, the process of learning to
teach dance illuminates the elements of sound
pedagogy, providing the basic tools for preparing
and improving lessons. This is where I make the
“dance training is necessary but not sufficient”
argument. Truly effective teaching, however, re-
quires consideration not only of what and when to
present information but also of how to present it.
Consideration of the latter issue makes explicit the
sometimes mysterious nature of dance, dances, and
dancing. It forces one to dig down deep to uncover
foundational ideas and structures in the discipline.
This effort highlights the importance of “teach-
ing for understanding,” which is a very different
enterprise than training for recall of steps and
routines. One also learns to teach dance to learn
about one’s own assumptions about dance. This
process underscores the role that personal beliefs
play in determining who receives dance instruction
rich in creative and critical thinking. In what fol-
lows, I expand on these ideas. I conclude with some
reflections on developing pedagogical knowledge in
dance.
Pedagogical Knowledge in Dance
A recent study asked principals to weigh in on the
controversy regarding threats to teacher quality.
10
Principals (N = 242) completed a survey in which
they rated how frequently, in their experience,
teacher ineffectiveness was caused by five factors:
1. deficiencies in content knowledge; 2. deficiencies
in lesson-planning skills; 3. deficiencies in lesson-
implementation skills; 4. deficiencies in ability to
establish rapport with students; and 5. deficiencies
in classroom management skills. The last four of
these factors were judged to represent varieties of
pedagogical knowledge. According to the principals
surveyed, those who are alarmed by purported
deficiencies in content knowledge have it wrong
on threats to teacher quality. The most common
Journal of Dance Education Volume 8, Number 1 2008 9
cause of teacher ineffectiveness cited by principals
in this study were deficiencies in three “in-class”
teaching skills central to teachers’ interactions
with students: lesson-implementation skills, ability
to establish rapport with students, and classroom
management skills. In sum, pedagogical knowl-
edge, not content knowledge, proved to be the more
frequent cause of teacher ineffectiveness, as judged
by the administrators who work most closely with
teachers.
10,11
The extension of these findings to personal ex-
perience may provide some insight into the value
of pedagogical knowledge in dance. As someone
who began teaching while still dancing profession-
ally, I basked in the certitude of my years in the
studio. I studied my favorite teachers. I convinced
myself that meticulous, well-organized lessons
would yield immediate results. Outside of class,
I wielded my content knowledge like a hammer,
every conceivable barrier to instruction was to me
a nail pounded down by experience. My lessons
plans were tight. My manner was professional.
Each dance combination and practically every
word was accounted for.
In class, I was a disaster. My dance training was
no match for the rigors of teaching. I impeded the
progress and motivation of my students. My lack
of pedagogical knowledge showed up in precisely
the ways reported by principals in the teacher qual-
ity study. I did not understand how to implement
a lesson or adjust it to the demands of different
populations. My so-called repertoire of rapport
consisted of jokes and occasional encouragement;
classroom management relied on healthy doses of
intimidation. I was a highly ineffective teacher.
My problem was that I understood learning as
the memorization of externally provided input, as
a passive act of knowledge and skill reception. Ac-
cordingly, I knew that my students could only think
about (or otherwise use) knowledge and skills that
they have already committed to memory (mental or
physical). In my mind, knowledge and skill inevita-
bly preceded thinking. I implicitly subscribed to a
hierarchical model of learning in which high-level
cognitive (e.g., analysis), emotional (e.g., caring),
and physical (e.g., jumping) operations grew out
of low-level ones (e.g., comprehension, sympathy,
strong feet). This view of learning is common among
novice teachers and tends to yield an impoverished
“transmission” approach to teaching.
It soon dawned on me that becoming a teacher
meant going beyond the steps. It required the
development of pedagogical knowledge, from cur-
ricular design to lesson implementation to final
assessment and back again. One of my graduate
school professors, David Perkins, summed up the
endeavor as learning to “teach for understanding,”
where the art of teaching involves the science of
building understanding.
12
From preparing the
foundation with clear learning goals through the
structuring of relevant activities to ongoing as-
sessment, education requires a rigorous kind of
competence and care.
9
I also found that learning to teach revealed
aspects of dance that until then were left unsaid
and thus undiscovered by me. For example, an-
other teacher, Penelope Hanstein, encouraged me
to think about dance as a domain of knowledge.
Generally, domains are defined as bodies of disci-
plined-based knowledge that have been structured
culturally, and which can be acquired, practiced,
mastered and then advanced through the act of
creating. The discipline of dance includes different
styles, such as ballet, hip-hop, improvisation, jazz,
or modern dance. I came to understand these dif-
ferent dance styles as entailing different domains
of knowledge, all of which demand distinct (some
might say unique) modes of moving, thinking, and
understanding. This fact became painfully obvi-
ous to me when I tried to move from an advanced
ballet class to an advanced contact improvisation
class. It is a qualitatively different experience to
learn balletic versus improvisational movement.
To be sure, there are overlapping movement ideas
and concepts. But, as Howard Gardner argues, the
development of knowledge and skills are largely
shaped by the structural constraints a domain
places on the process of learning.
13
One way to think about the structural con-
straints in dance is to consider the difference
between vertical and horizontal domains. Horizon-
tal domains, like postmodern dance or electronic
music, are established in such as way that most
of the components are susceptible to individual
transformation, with novelty possible in a variety of
dimensions. Ballet and violin playing, on the other
hand, are the prototypical vertical domains, with
highly structured, rule-based components that are
resistant to novelty and where adherence to style is
most important. Horizontal domains allow novelty
to occur in all dimensions, resulting in divergent
developmental patterns for learners; in contrast,
vertical domains possess certain stable elements
that are existentially fundamental to the domain,
thus permitting alteration only around certain
dimensions.
14
My exposure to pedagogical knowledge alerts
me to the nature of domains and the fact that
the horizontal versus vertical dichotomy is by no
means absolute. I began to understand that it is
10 Journal of Dance Education Volume 8, Number 1 2008
a qualitatively different experience to learn and
teach ballet versus improvisation. Moreover, it
became abundantly clear that a single teaching
method (like one hammer) does not work for every
challenge. These days, I encourage my students to
be wary of those who claim to be using exclusively
“constructivist-oriented” pedagogy when teaching
beginning dancers in the art of contact improvi-
sation. Similarly, I would encourage students to
question those who claim to be training expres-
sive ballet artists, but who employ primarily “drill
and skill” techniques in class. This all or nothing
tendency may be one reason why talented, well-
meaning individuals with years of experience and
education in dance are often ineffective teachers.
Exposure to pedagogical knowledge about domains
inculcates a kind of mental flexibility when con-
sidering what combination of teaching methods
will work best for the instructional challenge one
faces. In this way, the development of pedagogical
knowledge has helped expand my instructional
range, moving from ballet to contact improvisation
and back again.
Revealing Beliefs
As suggested by the foregoing discussion, the
process of acquiring pedagogical knowledge takes
one on a journey that is quite distinct from that
of acquiring content knowledge. Learning to teach
is an inherently reflexive process. One’s assump-
tions and beliefs are challenged. In teacher educa-
tion programs in particular, prospective teachers’
opinions about learning are met head-on by a large
body of educational research. One important area
of research on teaching is directly related to the
content versus pedagogy debate, namely the nature
and impact of teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning.
15
Teachers’ beliefs derive directly from personal
experiences in a subject. These beliefs have been
shown to influence how teachers structure tasks
and interact with learners.
16,17
My experience of
dance training, for instance, provided a kind of
road map for teaching dance. This so-called “in-
herited practice” had a profound influence on my
initial beliefs and practices. Three other important
influences on beliefs have been identified in the
development of teaching practice from novice to
expert: self-selection effects in prospective teach-
ers, the impact of preservice teacher training, and
the influence of inservice education and teaching
experience.
18
A subset of this theory and research
relates to teacher beliefs about critical thinking:
purposeful and goal-directed cognitive skills or
strategies that increase the likelihood of a desired
outcome.
19
My work in this area has focused on
the development of teacher beliefs about criti-
cal-thinking activities for different populations
of learners. I have surveyed both the general
population of teachers and focused more directly
on dance educators.
20-22
I have found that individuals who choose to
teach in dance, compared to non-teachers, do so
with a strong belief in the value of critical-thinking
in dance. This finding suggests a pedagogical-pref-
erence effect. Prospective dance teachers’ showed
strong pedagogical preferences for models of dance
education that champion critical-thinking, often
called “conceptual” approaches to dance. These
conceptual models resonant with critical-thinking
initiatives in that they focus on the deliberate prac-
tice of key movement ideas using explicit frame-
works for thinking in, evaluating, and performing
dance.
23
The finding of a pedagogical-preference
effect in self-selection of a career in teaching aligns
with findings in the general population.
I also found, however, that prospective dance
teachers’ beliefs in the efficacy of critical-think-
ing was considerably stronger for those dance
students who were judged to be high in ability,
motivation, and knowledge (i.e., high-advantage
learners). If taken to its logical end, one would
find high-advantage learners receiving enriched
instruction that results in high-level performance
that in turn makes still more enriched lessons
likely. Conversely, low-advantage learners would
receive few enriched lessons, making it unlikely
that they would develop sufficiently strong skills
to warrant enriched instruction in subsequent les-
sons. A self-fulfilling advantage effect would thus
emerge, one that would keep the “in” group in and
the “out” group out.
To summarize, prospective dance teachers
showed both pedagogical-preference effects and
learner advantage effects. As prospective dance
teachers gained preservice training and teach-
ing experience, however, these beliefs moderated
significantly. In particular, while preferences for
high-advantage learners remained intact, preser-
vice education was associated with a significant
increase in support for use of critical-thinking
activities for both high- and low-advantage ones.
This finding suggested to me that exposure to peda-
gogical knowledge resulted in greater awareness
of the domain of dance and strategies for optimal
teaching for all learners.
My experience and research has convinced me
that preservice training is essential in the develop-
ment of teaching skills and personal beliefs. But
one additional finding surprised me. I found that
Journal of Dance Education Volume 8, Number 1 2008 11
despite, or perhaps because of, their years in the
studio classroom, more experienced dance teach-
ers consistently favored high functioning learners.
They implicitly believed that “talent will out” no
matter what they do; that is, the most talented
dancers will improve regardless of instructional
approach. This finding contradicted studies of
teacher development in other areas. It presented
a striking counterpoint to studies of expertise in
other areas, where more experience was associ-
ated with more, not less, egalitarian views.
18
My
research suggested that, regardless of preservice
or inservice teacher education, the typical devel-
opmental path of dance teachers’ beliefs was only
partially consistent with attainment of expertise in
teaching. So, if experience and education does not
make me an expert, I thought, then what exactly
makes an expert teacher expert? I wanted to know
the stuff that experts know. What stuff do experts
believe that I don’t?
Surveys are all well and good, but at some point
a good researcher has to begin talking with people.
Almost five years ago, I began an ongoing multi-site
case study, using ethnographic methods, of expert
dance educators. I continue to observe, participate,
and talk with this group all across the country. One
common theme that I have heard repeated again
and again speaks directly to the issue of personal
beliefs, teaching approach, and learner advantages.
These experts share what one of them called the
“100 percent” doctrine. Expert dance educators
appear to believe in critical-thinking activities for
all learners, and they hold high expectations for
everyone, including themselves. Instead of “talent
will out” instructional tendencies, these experts be-
lieve “achievement will out” regardless of students’
ability, motivation, or previous knowledge in dance
as long as the educators’ pedagogical knowledge is
leveraged in appropriate and systematic ways. Most
experts told me a variation on the same theme:
namely, that if they did not get 100% of students
to achieve at a high level, then they did not believe
they had done their job as a teacher.
Improving Dance Teacher Quality
When I started teaching, I had no idea that I would
make it a career choice. I quickly learned that there
is little standardization in dance education circles
about what makes a good teacher good. Decisions
about teacher quality still seem to be made ad ho-
minem, often based solely on an individual’s dance
experience and professional reputation. She is a
famous dancer; he is a known choreographer. These
individuals must know how to teach dance. The
majority of U.S. institutions of education at all lev-
els, both in the private and public sectors, have no
comprehensive guide or certification procedure in
place to help distinguish between those who know
their stuff and those that are just full of stuff. The
National Dance Education Organization is active
in this arena and, with state agencies and private
sector organizations like the National Registry of
Dance Educators (www.nrde.org), new initiatives are
attempting to redress this problem with valuable
certification and professional development oppor-
tunities. The individuals involved in these efforts
understand that once dancers know what, when,
how, and who they are teaching—when pedagogical
knowledge is as valued as content knowledge—our
community will be stronger, more informed, and
more respected.
This essay has attempted to fuel those efforts
by showing how deficiencies in the skills needed
to teach dance (i.e., pedagogical knowledge) pose
a bigger threat to effective instruction than famil-
iarity with the subject being taught (i.e., content
knowledge). The process of learning to teach dance
illuminates the elements of sound pedagogy, provid-
ing the basic tools for preparing and implementing
lessons. It provides an opportunity to expand one’s
understanding of dance and revise beliefs about
teaching and learning in dance. I conclude with
a short philosophical argument in favor of peda-
gogical knowledge in dance education. In short, I
believe that nothing in dance education will change
until we convince young dancers that pedagogy, like
choreography, is their work.
My “pedagogy as choreography” stance owes
it formulation to Sue Stinson, the quintessential
dance educator. Her “Scholar/Artist Lecture” titled
“Research as Choreography” given at the American
Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance’s 1994 National Convention inspired
many of us young dance educators and researchers.
In her lecture, Stinson told us that one of her most
important tasks is to help dance students recog-
nize that “scholarly research, like choreography, is
their work.”
24
She described the ways researching
is akin to choreographing: gathering content and
generating raw materials, beginning initial drafts
and searching for the right (not formulaic) form
and structure, making decisions about what works
and why, putting the work into action (on page or
onstage), with many revisions and re-envisioning
throughout the process. The beauty of Stinson’s ap-
proach is that she brings research to her students,
rather than the other way around.
Perhaps if we bring the art and science of teach-
ing to our colleagues and students in this way,
pedagogy as choreography, we might engender
12 Journal of Dance Education Volume 8, Number 1 2008
new kinds of dance, dances, dancing, and dance
education. The effort to advance dance through
the improvement of teacher quality can be found in
many dance education texts. This essay argues for
something else. I believe that one of our top priori-
ties as dance educators must be to refocus dance
on the learning and teaching enterprise, where
content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge
go hand-in-hand. If we do this, then we will build
an engaged and informed readership who seek to
learn more about the appropriate combinations
of the who, what, when, where, and how of dance
education. We should do this work so that all of us
will aspire to become like the expert dance teacher
in the beginning of this essay, making the good
work of dance education feel, to paraphrase Erick
Hawkins, like a clear place.
25
References
1. Hirsch ED: The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t
Have Them. New York: Doubleday, 1996.
2. Kanstoroom M, Finn CE:
Better Teachers, Better
Schools. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation,
1999.
3. Gross ML:
The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure
of American Public Schools. New York: HarperCol-
lins, 1999.
4. Kramer R:
Ed School Follies: The Miseducation of
America’s Teachers. New York: Free Press, 1991.
5. Lambert NM, McCombs BL:
How Students Learn:
Reforming Schools Through Learner-Centered In-
struction. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 1998.
6. Noddings N:
The Challenge to Care in Schools:
An Alternative Approach to Education. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1992, pp. xiv, 191.
7. Kanstoroom M: Boosting teacher quality: A common
sense proposal. Testimony before the Subcommittee
on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives, May 13, 1999.
8. Scripp L:
Music-In-Education at New England
Conservatory. Boston, Mass., 2003.
9. Warburton EC: Who cares? Teaching and learning
care in dance. Journal of Dance Education 4(3):88-
96, 2004.
10. Torff B, Sessions DN: Principals’ perceptions of the
causes of teacher ineffectiveness. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 97(4):530-537, 2005.
11. Torff B: Getting it wrong on threats to teacher qual
-
ity. Phi Delta Kappan 87(4):302-305, 2005.
12. Perkins DN:
Smart Schools: From Training Memo-
ries to Educating Minds. New York: Free Press,
1992.
13. Gardner H: Extraordinary cognitive achievements: A
symbol systems approach. In: Damon W (ed): Hand-
book of Child Psychology (5th ed); Vol 1: Theoretical
Models of Human Development. New York: Wiley,
1998, pp. 415-466.
14. Li J: Creativity in horizontal and vertical domains.
Creativity Research Journal 10(2 & 3):107-132,
1997.
15. Torff B: Developmental changes in teachers’ use
of higher-order thinking and content knowledge.
Journal of Educational Psychology 95(3):563-569,
2003.
16. Anning A: Teachers theories about children’s learn
-
ing. In: Calderhead J (ed): Teachers Professional
Learning. London: Falmer Press, 1988, pp. 128-
145.
17. Richardson V: The role of attitudes and beliefs in
learning to teach. In: Sikula J (ed): Handbook of
Research in Teacher Education (2nd ed). New York:
Macmillian, 1996, pp. 102-119.
18. Torff B: Developmental changes in teachers’ beliefs
about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 97(1):13-22, 2005.
19. Torff B, Warburton EC: Assessment of teachers’
beliefs about classroom demand for critical-think-
ing. Educational and Psychological Measurement
65(1):155-179, 2005.
20. Warburton EC: Knowing what it takes: The effect
of perceived learner advantages on dance teachers’
use of critical-thinking activities. Research in Dance
Education 5(1):69-82, 2004.
21. Warburton EC, Torff B: The effect of perceived
learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about criti-
cal-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education
56(1):24-33, 2005.
22. Warburton EC: Changes in dance teachers’ beliefs
about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Educa-
tion and Human Development 2(1):1-16, 2008.
23. Warburton EC: Intelligence past, present, and pos
-
sible: The theory of multiple intelligences in dance
education. Journal of Dance Education 3(1):7-15,
2003.
24. Stinson SW: Research as choreography. Research in
Dance Education 7(2):201-209, 2007.
25. Hawkins E:
The Body is a Clear Place and Other
Statements on Dance. Pennington, NJ: Princeton
Books, Co., 1992.
