Journal of Dance Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujod20

Professional Performance Experience Versus

Pedagogical Knowledge in Teaching Technique
Class as a Creative Process

Sarah Alaways

To cite this article: Sarah Alaways (2020) Professional Performance Experience Versus
Pedagogical Knowledge in Teaching Technique Class as a Creative Process, Journal of Dance
Education, 20:4, 214-223, DOI: 10.1080/15290824.2019.1607352

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2019.1607352

Published online: 22 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 610

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujod20
Journal of Dance Education, 20: 214–223, 2020
© 2019 National Dance Education Organization
ISSN: 1529-0824 print / 2158-074X online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2019.1607352
Sarah Alaways, MA
Trinity Laban Conservatoire of
Music and Dance, Renton, WA
Address correspondence to Sarah
Alaways, 15150 140th Way Southeast,
Unit F201, Renton, WA 98058. Email:
sarahjoakley@me.com
Professional Performance
Experience Versus Pedagogical
Knowledge in Teaching Technique
Class as a Creative Process
ABSTRACT “Professional performance experience versus pedagogical knowl-
edge in teaching technique class as a creative process” is a qualitative examina-
tion of the practices of six contemporary technique teachers that identifies the
ways in which their educational and professional performance experiences have
affected their teaching practices. Interviews investigating their teaching beliefs
allowed the instructors’ practices to be divided into components: pedagogical
implementation, content knowledge in practice, the value of formal teacher
training, their understanding of their teaching selves, and teaching as a creative
process. The teachers’ accumulation of knowledge is examined in relationship to
their teaching choices, their own understanding of their choices, and how their
methods are holistically supporting their students’ progress. The importance of
instructor self-reflection, self-awareness, and creative flexibility are also discussed.
The unique classroom environments of each teacher are examined side-by-side,
revealing how their experiences add to their overall understanding of teaching as
a creative process.
Dance education depends on the merging of pedagogical knowledge and artistic
experience. Performance skills and professional reputation are often favored over
teaching knowledge and pedagogical implementation, creating a hierarchy of teachers
where the artistically skilled rest at the top and teaching effectiveness is sometimes
overlooked (Musil 2010; Huddy and Stevens 2011). Effective teaching requires
pedagogical knowledge, which Edward Warburton (2008) defined as “familiarity
with techniques for teaching the subject” (8). Pedagogical knowledge challenges
teachers with current educational research, reforms their beliefs about teaching and
learning, and empowers them to structure their classrooms accordingly (Warburton
2008). It is unclear where the value of performance experience lies in relationship to
the value of teaching skill, especially considering “a professional performance career
has long been the only prerequisite for a teaching career” (Roche and Huddy
2015, 52).
Assuming for a moment that dance educators possess both performance experi-
ence and pedagogical knowledge, the debate would lie not in their qualifications, but
rather in the appropriate combination of knowledge and experiences to support
effective teaching (Warburton 2008). This “ideal blend” is mentioned by several
researchers. Eric Booth (2003) named the blend “teaching artist” and insisted, as
cited by Avril Huddy and Kym Stevens (2011), that the teacher “model behavior
214
specific to her/his art form whilst being adept at applying
an extensive range of pedagogy” (159). Pamela Musil (2010)
simply stated that a teacher should be an “artist-educator”
(117) and insisted that teaching and dancing be placed on
equal planes. The pedagogies that best support the full
range and application of dance knowledge vary between
teachers.
This research interrogates how successful teachers com-
bine their experience with their pedagogical knowledge to
enrich their classroom practices, unraveling the relation-
ship between performing and teaching. Six higher educa-
tion contemporary technique teachers participated in
semistructured interviews that created a flexible interview
environment, giving rise to areas of the research that
might not have been considered (Klockare, Gustafsson,
and Nordin-Bates 2011). They spoke about their class-
room practices and the experiences that led them to their
teaching beliefs. The discussion of their practices pro-
vides pictures of higher education learning environments
that value content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,
and personal experience. This research informs the
dance community of how others are choosing to put
teaching pedagogy into practice with their rich profes-
sional experiences. The discussion is a relevant contribu-
tion to the sharing of teaching practices from diverse
perspectives to challenge the understanding of what it
means to be a dance educator.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pedagogical Shifts in Dance Training
Traditional dance classrooms rely on teacher-centered prac-
tices that are, according to Donna Dragon (2015), “silently
embedded into dance classroom experiences without expli-
cit explanations to students of the origins, purposes, or
philosophies underlying the methods” (25). Students
remain unaware of teaching values and gain little under-
standing of pedagogy, impairing their future potential as
teachers (Dragon 2015). Learning environments have con-
ventionally been teacher-centered; the expert teacher is the
ultimate source of information and imparts knowledge to
passive learners (Gibbons 2007; Huddy and Stevens 2011;
Dragon 2015). Traditional methods of teaching promote
learning wherein students mimic teachers’ movements,
which “does not encourage student questioning, comment,
or deep cognitive engagement,” and can cause students’
autonomy and creativity to suffer (Roche and Huddy
2015, 150–151). Thankfully, there has been a shift in
dance education to promote student-centered practices;
educators are forming stronger beliefs in collaborative
learning, humanistic practices, and dialogical learning pro-
cesses (Musil 2010; Stanton 2011; Redding, Sell, and
Curtis-Jones 2016; Wilson 2016).
Generally, dance educators are promoting “discovery learn-
ing” and “enquiry-based” approaches to teaching that foster
S. Alaways
critical reflection and student engagement (Huddy and
Stevens 2011; Redding, Sell, and Curtis-Jones 2016). Learner-
centered approaches promote the individual and take the needs,
expectations, and expertise of the student into consideration.
Instructors become facilitators rather than purely content
experts (Roche and Huddy 2015). Teachers are also engaging
with dance content in a way that moves past skill acquisition
alone and into quality, awareness, and a deeper understanding
of the reasons for and behind movement (Huddy and Stevens
2011), giving importance to dancers’ creativity.
Understanding performance’s role in the classroom
could also enrich dancers’ creativity. Performance is
more than a technique-driven activity. According to
Stevens and Huddy (2016), “Performance in the dance
teaching context needs to be driven by a broader range of
criteria that encompasses choreography and responding
and reflecting on the process of performance, dance
works, and dancers. This view … highlights the intercon-
nectedness of dance as an art form” (70). Current perfor-
mance theories center around embodiment, developed
sense of self, awareness, presence, risk taking, decision
making, agency, empowerment, ownership, freedom,
autonomy, varying energy, and clear intention (Lobel
and Brodie 2012; Kelly 2016). Some instructors are sim-
ply bringing attention to the dance fundamentals of
body, effort, shape, and space to enhance performance
quality and offer a “rich spectrum of movement experi-
ences” (Wilson 2016, 21). Simple chances for improvisa-
tion or collaboration allow students opportunities for
creative exercise as well as model potential choreogra-
phers’ working habits. It is not a question of if dancers
should be “performing” in technique class, but rather
a question of how teachers are working toward support-
ing the values of contemporary performance practice.
Whatever the teacher’s aims, some dance researchers
argue that the “how” (the pedagogical framework) of
teaching is more important than the “what” (the content
being taught) (Alterowitz 2014), but dance content
knowledge also plays a critical role in the technique
classroom.
Content Knowledge in the Dance Class
Content knowledge is most simply proficiency in the subject
taught (Warburton 2008). In the contemporary technique class-
room, the subject can encapsulate one or many styles of con-
temporary dance including but not limited to release
techniques, Limòn technique, Cunningham technique,
Graham technique, somatic practices, or improvisation. Each
style encapsulates dance fundamentals, which include body,
shape, space, energy, and time. Whatever the technique,
a dancing human body is also in conversation with motor
learning, movement physics, anatomy, kinesiology, biomecha-
nics, and cognitive theory (Gibbons 2007; Mainwaring and
Krasnow 2010; Ambrosio 2013).
215
 Scientific approaches to training, including motor learning,
safe dance practice, and ideokinetic principles, support the
necessary understanding of proper alignment, muscle strength,
muscle function, efficiency, proper physiological rest, injury
prevention, performance potential, proper warmup and cool-
down, nutrition, and skill acquisition (Williams 2011; Quin,
Rafferty, and Tomlinson 2015; Wilmerding and Krasnow 2015).
Understanding these subjects as a part of a technique class’s
content knowledge gives teachers awareness of safe dance prac-
tices, holistic knowledge of the body and the mind, anatomical
support of content, and the ability to apply each of these knowl-
edges to their practices. Proper implementation of these princi-
ples is required for students to safely achieve an advanced level
of technical skill.
Technique class content must also support dance as
a performing art. Artistic and creative potential is especially
important considering dancers’ creative abilities might not be
adequately developed for a transition to the professional indus-
try; dancers now must be trained as “intelligent artists” (Roche
and Huddy 2015). Emma Redding, Naomi Lefebvre Sell, and
Alison Curtis-Jones (2016), in recognizing the range of skills
required of their students, contextualized their teaching as both
educational and artistic. They integrated somatic movement
and choreology into their content (along with scientific knowl-
edge) to enhance the creative and technical potential of their
students. Overall, the blending of artistic, scientific, and tech-
nique-related approaches to teaching depends on the individual
instructor’s experience with the content.
The Value of Formal Teacher Training
Content knowledge must be backed by pedagogical knowl-
edge, as the most frequent cause of teacher ineffectiveness is
the neglect of pedagogical knowledge (Warburton 2008).
Although there are many ways to accrue pedagogical knowl-
edge (including personal research, observing other educa-
tors, or teaching experience), there is value in undergoing
formal teacher training. For the purpose of this research,
formal teacher training is defined as courses or course work
completed under the guidance of another educator who
teaches educational practices, explores various pedagogical
frameworks, and establishes tools for lesson planning and
implementation, classroom management, feedback, and
personal reflection. Formal teacher training illuminates ped-
agogical basics, reveals personal beliefs, and enhances men-
tal flexibility for in-the-moment decision making in the face
of challenges (Warburton 2008).
There are some fields of dance education that require
formal training and certification, such as most K–12 public
school settings. This is not the case for higher education.
Whereas teaching in the United Kingdom usually requires
one to complete a teaching credential (e.g., a Postgraduate
Certificate in Higher Education or a Fellowship of the
Higher Education Academy, both of which require one to
demonstrate knowledge of teaching practices), the same is
not true for the United States or Australia, where there is no
216 Professional Performance Experience Versus Pedagogical Knowledge
certification procedure (Warburton 2008). It is then possible
to hire teachers based on their backgrounds alone.
Teachers hired based on their backgrounds might not
have the ability to back up or challenge their teaching
practices. Teachers then must teach as they were taught or
learn as they go through trial-and-error, hit-or-miss
approaches, and individual research (Overby 2014).
Teaching experience does allow instructors to draw on
insights and intuition, but these require a recognition of
such limitations (Brookfield 2015). Without formal train-
ing, teachers might struggle to find solutions or alternatives
to their own, idiosyncratic practices. The more educated an
instructor is on the variety of available pedagogical frame-
works, the more responsive he or she will be in choosing
which framework is appropriate for each situation (Gibbons
2007). The differences between teachers with and without
formal teacher training are also reflected in their relation-
ships with class content; teachers with significant profes-
sional experience cite their own training as having the
biggest impact on their teaching, whereas instructors with
educational training cite that student needs most often
affect their practices (Sims and Erwin 2012). Nevertheless,
a critical understanding of their own experiences empowers
teachers to appropriately integrate their backgrounds into
their content choices (Fortin 1998).
The shift in focus during teacher training is partly due to
questioning one’s own teaching practices and observing the
effects of various approaches. Teachers-in-training question
and reflect on learning experiences, shift away from
a teacher-as-expert approach, and widen their perception
of teaching and their ability for self-reflection (Huddy and
Stevens 2011). Working as a reflective teacher means being
able to respond instinctively and intuitively to what others
offer in a wide range of situations (Tiller 2014). Reflection
includes both in-the-moment reflection and postsession
reflection (Tiller 2014). Such reflective processes bring
awareness to the possible conflict between what teachers
desire for their classrooms and what is actually happening,
increasing the chances that an instructor’s decisions will be
accurate and informed (Musil 2010; Brookfield 2015).
A self-reflective teaching practice is more akin to
a creative process: Trying things out, being open to others’
opinions, taking risks, and learning from mistakes all
become important in a reflective teaching practice. The
artistic identity of a teaching artist is therefore central to
the pedagogy; teaching artists who trained in a self-
reflective manner found connections between their creative
work and teaching selves (Tiller 2014). Critical reflection
could be the key to creative teaching and connecting
a teacher’s performance and teaching experiences.
The Overlapping Teacher Self (Performer,
Teacher, and Creator)
Lisa Wilson (2016) described an existing artist–educator
dichotomy where the teaching individual and the dancing
or performing self are separate. A separation of selves stunts
the growth of the teaching field and places dance practices
at odds with teaching practices. The divide blurs students’
“ability to meaningfully experience, and optimally benefit
from, how dance pedagogy, dance performance, and chor-
eography reciprocally inform, shape, and support each
other” (Wilson 2016, 21). Understanding that dance educa-
tors have overlapping professional and artistic identities
allows students to view teaching and dance practices as
cooperative, creative, and connected.
The separation of teaching and performance selves could
mean separating technical skill from performance practice,
which should remain intertwined. Stevens and Huddy
(2016) insisted that teaching is itself a form of nontheatrical
performance. The overlap of skills between performance and
teaching include “nuanced communication both verbal and
non-verbal, engaging students as audience, rehearsal and pre-
paration processes, and consideration of complex transitions
between ideas, technique, and embodiment” (70). Teaching
thus becomes creative, transformative, and performative.
Teaching as a Creative Process
Recognizing the overlap between performing and teaching
selves connects to understanding teaching as a creative process
(Tiller 2014). Teaching as an artistic practice creates space for an
idiosyncratic classroom culture surrounding the past training,
current practices, and teaching beliefs of the teacher.
Understanding their individuality allows teachers to embrace
their unique culture of teaching and learning along with their
teaching identity (Dragon 2015). A sense of personal ownership
and originality creates an artistic environment where teachers
and students are active, curious, and reflective (Nicoll and
Oreck 2013), therefore supporting student-centered practices
and autonomous learning.
Teaching as a creative process supports the idea that the best
teaching practices include varied, open, and changing pedago-
gical values and techniques. Instead of pointing students away
from the unknown or simplifying artistic choices, teachers allow
action, observation, and reflection (Nicoll and Oreck 2013).
Jessica Nicoll and Barry Oreck (2013) asserted that teaching “is
the same process as making art” (94). Another way to under-
stand teaching as a creative process is to describe the technique
class as a laboratory, which gives students an opportunity to
“explore their potential, confront their limitations, and start to
recognize their own learning through trial and error” (Stanton
2011, 86). Creative teaching is also more connected to working
in the professional performance arena, as there has been a shift
in employment practices that demands a professional dancer be
more involved in the creative process.
Looking beyond the performance industry, dancers have
the opportunity to become teachers, researchers, critics, chor-
eographers, physiotherapists, and otherwise. Technique class
should challenge performance as the ultimate goal and put
each of these professions on an equal plane, all of which
require the higher order thinking skills and multiple perspec-
tives that a creative technique class provides (Musil 2010).
S. Alaways
METHODOLOGY
This research took a qualitative approach to investigating the
roles of teachers and performers through the eyes of practicing
dance professionals. Their experiences were examined
through semistructured interviews and supported by research
on dance pedagogies and classroom practices.
Six current contemporary technique teachers in higher
education institutions were chosen for 30-minute semistruc-
tured interviews. The semistructured interviews allowed the
teachers to lead the discussion as their expertise and interest
enabled, also allowing the interviewer to probe for deeper
information on the areas of their experience that best sup-
ported the research. It was important that they were practicing
teachers to get the most relevant information on the current
teaching cultures. The small sample size focuses on individual
perceptions while still producing a reasonable amount of data
(Klockare, Gustafsson, and Nordin-Bates 2011).
Although the ethical considerations of this research were
few, ethical guidelines were followed. Participation in the
project was voluntary and interviewees remain anonymous;
the names provided are pseudonyms. Participants were given
the right to withdraw at any time. They were also informed
that the interviews would be recorded and transcribed.
Interviewees were chosen using purposive sampling to
ensure that the topic was relevant to them and with the hope
that they would be examples of exemplary teachers. Teachers
were recommended to the researcher based on peers’ experi-
ences with their teaching habits in a contemporary technique
classroom. They were three men and three women from higher
education institutions in the United States (two interviewees),
the United Kingdom (three interviewees), and Australia (one
interviewee). Three interviewees had extensive performance
experience, two had a moderate amount of performance experi-
ence, and one had a less developed performance practice. With
regard to formal teacher training, three had formal training and
three learned how to teach through combinations of indepen-
dent research, imitation, experience, and self-reflection. The
variety of the interviewees, both in dance background and
current teaching location, is not to generalize the information
but rather to broaden the area of research beyond personal
experience and balance any cultural or background biases with
multiple, international approaches. A summary of each inter-
viewee follows.
Anna spent most of her time performing as a ballet
dancer before moving into contemporary dance. She
began teaching children as a “job of convenience” and
based her teaching on her experience as a ballet dancer.
She later earned a doctorate of education from Teacher’s
College in biomechanics and neuromotor processing,
which included additional training in education and curri-
cular theory. She is currently a Limòn and release-based
contemporary technique teacher at a university in the
United States. She has ten years of teaching experience.
Beth has performed with independent choreographers
that she described as “experimental” and “technical.” Her
time teaching and performing has overlapped significantly,
217
and she continues to work on her own choreographic
projects. She earned her postgraduate certification in educa-
tion before beginning to teach at a conservatoire in the
United Kingdom where she currently teaches somatically
informed, release-based contemporary technique classes.
She has 17 years of teaching experience.
Caroline considers performance to be the “least developed
part” of her portfolio and has not performed in ten years. She
earned a bachelor of education in human movement studies
and a dance-related master’s degree in fine arts. She is the only
participant who had experience teaching before becoming
a performer. She has taught Limòn-based contemporary tech-
nique classes in higher education for 33 years and currently
teaches at a university in the United Kingdom.
Daniel has extensive performance experience that includes
major touring contemporary dance companies and began
teaching on company tours. He has not undergone any formal
teacher training but learned how to teach through “imitation
and forming his own philosophies.” His performing and chor-
eographing is ongoing, and he teaches somatically informed
contemporary classes at a conservatoire in the United States. He
has 40 years of teaching experience.
Elliot performed in both large-scale touring companies
and smaller project-based work. He taught informally
before taking an interest in teaching. He attributes his
knowledge of teaching practices to experience, but he is
earning a PhD in dance pedagogy. He is no longer perform-
ing and currently teaches release-based contemporary tech-
nique classes at a conservatoire in the United Kingdom. He
has 19 years of teaching experience.
Felix performed extensively in contemporary and ballet
companies through project-based work and for commercial
purposes. He started teaching as a part of being in
a contemporary company, teaching company class and
workshops. He learned how to teach from “being trained
by people” and learning by “bespoke learning where
a teacher teaches you something and you retain that infor-
mation.” He currently teaches Graham-based technique
classes at a conservatoire in Australia. He has 16 years of
experience teaching in higher education.
The teachers were asked questions that unveiled their
pedagogical beliefs and explored how their performance
experiences have informed their teaching practices. They
briefly described their performance and teaching back-
grounds, including their accumulation of pedagogical knowl-
edge and how they apply pedagogy to their classrooms (with
specific examples of techniques, theoretical frameworks, stra-
tegies, feedback techniques, class structure, somatic integra-
tion, etc.). They were then asked which elements of their
performance experiences they integrate into their classrooms
and if they notice a link between their performance careers
and teaching practices. They were also asked what they hope
students gain from technique class. Finally, they had
a chance to speak about their own creative and professional
development and were given an opportunity at the end of
the interview to add anything they wished. The interviews
218 Professional Performance Experience Versus Pedagogical Knowledge
were transcribed and the names of educational institutions
and colleagues were removed to preserve anonymity. The
interview transcriptions were read three times, and any infor-
mation considered significant was highlighted and coded
in vivo, keeping the data in the interviewee’s own language
and allowing the analysis to be grounded in the participants’
experiences (Saldaña 2016). The first reading split the inter-
views into many less comprehensive themes: The highlighted
quotes across all interviews were compiled, compared, color-
coded for commonalities, and labeled thematically. The first
set of themes was then reevaluated for larger emerging cate-
gories. This method of splitting the data before regrouping
allowed for a more nuanced analysis of the interviewees’
experiences (Saldaña 2016). Five comprehensive categories
emerged around which this research was organized: peda-
gogy, content knowledge, the value of formal teacher train-
ing, the overlapping teacher self, and teaching as a creative
process. The results revealed the teachers’ perception of the
relationship between their experience and their practices.
DISCUSSION
Pedagogy in Practice: Student-Centered
Learning Environments
All six interviewees endeavor to create an environment of
self-discovery, self-guidance, or self-learning for students
(i.e., student-centered teaching practices), which considers
the pedagogical research mentioned earlier in support of
autonomous learning (Redding, Sell, and Curtis-Jones
2016; Wilson 2016). They also seemed more concerned
with the “how” of their teaching practices when describing
their classrooms, matching the current discussions around
technique class (Alterowitz 2014).
For Anna, her number one priority was “students’ indi-
vidual … self-guidance.” She spoke on allowing chaos in
the classroom, a sign to her that the students are learning
instead of just practicing. She implied that chaos gives
students an opportunity to self-organize. Allowing chaos
is her form of facilitating and remaining flexible (Roche
and Huddy 2015).
Beth seeks to create an environment in which she is
researching with the students. Students create and give
meaning to the class just as much as, if not more than,
the teacher. She encourages them to ask questions and solve
problems together. Beth’s approach is a combination of
“enquiry-based” collaborative learning and treating the
technique class like a creative laboratory (Stanton 2011).
Caroline simply stated, “It’s not about me.” She sets up
conversations among teacher, learner, and material, where the
material includes a “question-and-answer, problem-solving”
environment. She, along with Beth and Elliot, insisted that
everyone is participating as a contributor to the learning com-
munity, disrupting the “traditional power between teacher and
learner.” For them, class is about collaboration, negotiation, and
recognizing community. The community of class was also
important to Daniel, who had a similar philosophy: “Listen;
do not dictate; inform; allow choice; question.” He described
allowing students to discover their own pathways, giving them
agency and creative license in the classroom.
Elliot described the materials to be a basis around which
students “navigate their own learning,” understanding that
the students contribute to the learning process and placing
a high value on dialogue. Although Elliot most clearly
placed his work within dialogical pedagogies, all intervie-
wees listed conversation as an important part of the teach-
ing process. Caroline and Elliot also recognized that the
agreement for and responses of the group could change on
any given day, requiring flexibility of practice and various
strategies to respond to changing contexts.
Beth, Caroline, Daniel, and Elliot’s classroom descrip-
tions seemed to align with feminist pedagogy, which
according to Sherrie Barr and Wendy Oliver (2016), “gives
attention to teaching approaches surrounding principles of
honoring individual voices, collaborative learning, decen-
tering the teacher–student relationship, inclusivity, and cri-
tical reflection” (98). Teaching is a continuous reflective
process in a community of autonomous learners where no
expectations exist around learning.
Felix situates himself more traditionally in the classroom
and stated, “Everyone wants to pretend like we’re all on the
same level, and unfortunately, there’s still that hierarchy.”
He also mentioned that the studio space maintains rules,
regulations, and ways of behaving. Even though he
acknowledged the existence of student-centered teaching
and spoke on being supportive of students’ goals and
dreams, it seems that his classes are more content-focused
than student-focused.
Out of the six interviewees, only Caroline and Elliot were
able to define their pedagogical influences, which in both
cases were well-researched and diversified. Caroline was
inspired by communities of practice (Wenger 1998), which is
the belief that people are bound together by shared expertise
in and passion for a subject, making learning a social experi-
ence. She also cited successful microcultures of teaching,
which “happen because of resistance rather than going with
what’s expected,” and the trialogical approach to learning,
where the work sits within a triangle created by the teacher,
the learner, and the material. These pedagogies support con-
versation, flexibility, and learning as a shared experience, all of
which are essential to student-centered teaching. Elliot
defined Freirean critical pedagogy as his most recent influ-
ence, which connects to feminist pedagogical practices and
shares the feminist pedagogical beliefs mentioned earlier (col-
laborative learning, inclusivity, and critical reflection). Paolo
Freire’s (1972) work Pedagogy of the Oppressed calls for the end of
the “banking method,” where teachers see students as empty
vessels in which to deposit knowledge. Instead, teachers
should allow students to contribute to the learning process.
Even though the other four interviewees were not as clear in
their pedagogical influences, it seems that they shared
a (perhaps less defined) understanding of student-centered
teaching practices.
S. Alaways
Content Knowledge in Practice
The “what” of technique class is becoming increasingly
varied in style, scientific knowledge, and artistic content.
Content also varied for the interviewees; their content
choices include a combination of Limòn technique, release
techniques, Graham technique, somatic techniques,
Gyrotonic, and improvisation, influenced by their knowl-
edge of motor learning, anatomy, and movement princi-
ples. Each interviewee maintains a different relationship to
their class content and structure according to their content
values (Dragon 2015).
Participants did not mention student safety, injury preven-
tion, and other elements of safe dance practice (although
Daniel did mention the importance of a proper warmup),
but it could be assumed that they are aware of safe practices
and did not think the explanation of such was important to
this study. However, the importance of maintaining the health
of a dancer’s body and mind is often undervalued, and these
higher education professionals could be empowered by updat-
ing their application of safe dance practice principles (Quin,
Rafferty, and Tomlinson 2015).
Anna is the most trained regarding motor learning and places
importance on its understanding. She also makes connections
between Limòn and release techniques through biophysics:
gravity, the weight of the pelvis, the weight of the head, and
their relationship in three-dimensional space. Her scientific
approach supports her aims to challenge her students’ physical-
ity and to allow her students to evaluate movement on
a physical level. Similarly, Caroline, Daniel, and Elliot value
biomechanics and teach through principles such as efficiency,
flow of movement, weight shifting, presence, and muscular
intention, which demonstrates their mastery over multiple con-
tent categories (science-related content, style-related content,
dance fundamentals) and their ability to creatively connect
them, giving their students deeper ways of knowing and under-
standing movement (Mainwaring and Krasnow 2010).
Beth, as a physiotherapist, has extensive knowledge of
anatomy and kinesiology. She prefers starting the class with
somatic material that allows students to “clarify how they
are using their bodies.” She uses the same values in set
material so that they explore principles in different ways,
supporting her belief that technique class is about under-
standing the body to use it to its greatest potential.
Although she seeks to support the values of contemporary
dance in her classes, which she lists as inhabiting, being,
and doing, she does so in her own structure that she has
created through years of teaching experience and question-
ing existing exercise-to-exercise structures. Beth is critical of
her own training and flexible in her material, allowing her
to adapt to changing environments (Tiller 2014).
Five out of six interviewees (excluding Felix) also under-
stood the connectedness of technique, performance, creat-
ing work, and teaching as the components of a full dancing
self and allow each of these aspects of dance to be present
in their class content. It was difficult for them to separate
219
the “technique” of a technique class from the performative
aspects of technique class (Stevens and Huddy 2016). Beth,
Caroline, Daniel, and Elliot were much more interested in
the students’ engagement with the work and their investiga-
tion of quality rather than the movement content itself.
Conversely, Felix saw technique as separate from perfor-
mance, or as a step to get to performance, reflected in his
relationship to the content he teaches. His endpoint is preparing
students for auditions and performances. Tailoring his content
to fit industry standards could be connected to his past experi-
ences as a performer and his understanding of what skills are
needed to succeed in the dance industry. However, the range of
creative processes that currently exist make it nearly impossible
to teach directly to the industry (Roche and Huddy 2015).
Although Felix mentioned that his students also take classes in
somatic practices and improvisation, the effects of performance
knowledge gained in such subjects are more valuable when the
practices are also integrated into technique class (Roche and
Huddy 2015). I discuss later that Felix’s separation of technique
and performance is possibly connected to a misunderstanding
of his own teacher–performer self.
The Value of Formal Teacher Training
As was expected, the participants who underwent formal
teacher training (Anna, Beth, and Caroline) credited their
course work for challenging and dissecting their teaching
practices (Sims and Erwin 2012). Teacher training provided
knowledge on classroom management, course structure,
and lesson planning as well as a variety of frameworks.
Considering industry practices of hiring teachers based on
experience (Roche and Huddy 2015), it is not surprising
that half of the participants have not undergone formal
teacher training, but are still teaching technique in higher
education. However, after dissecting their approaches to
pedagogy, it seems that Daniel and Elliot have made up
for their lack of formal education by adopting a self-
reflective attitude.
For Anna, her educational theory course work confirmed
and challenged her own intuition as a dancer (Stevens and
Huddy 2016). Teacher training changed her teaching so
significantly that she does not consider her pretraining
teaching as the valid start of her teaching career. Even
after her teacher training, however, Anna still admitted to
teaching as she was taught (Huddy and Stevens 2011), but
“while still being able to challenge” her practice. Prior to
formal teacher training, Beth was uncomfortable in the
classroom and did not understand how to make choices
about what she was doing. Training allowed her to organize
her teaching and gave her the tools to support her content.
Similarly, Caroline allowed teaching education to dissect
her practice, take the focus off herself as a teacher, and give
her an understanding of how to assist the class’s engage-
ment with the work (Huddy and Stevens 2011). All three
trained interviewees value their formal training for their
teaching knowledge.
220 Professional Performance Experience Versus Pedagogical Knowledge
Daniel and Elliot, although they credit their teaching
experiences for their pedagogical knowledge, have adopted
extremely reflective teaching practices, allowing them to
dissect their experiences independently of formal teacher
training (Tiller 2014). Daniel admits to teaching by “imita-
tion,” although he also recognizes his own values and often
relates his teaching to his own experiences as a student.
Interestingly, Caroline (with formal training) and Elliot
(without formal training) have similar approaches to teach-
ing, are both very clear in their pedagogical choices, and
seem to do the most continual research regarding educa-
tional theories. In this case, Elliot’s teaching is not suffering
for lack of training although he still demonstrates a firm
grasp of various pedagogical strategies, the awareness of and
practice in these strategies came without formal training.
His experience is an example of how independent research
and a self-reflective practice can create an excellent teacher
as effectively as formal teacher training.
As the earlier research theorized for a teacher with exten-
sive experience and no formal teacher training, Felix credits
his training for his teaching knowledge (Sims and Erwin
2012) and describes his training as “bespoke learning.” His
performance-heavy experience is reflected in his commit-
ment to industry practices and teaching to the endpoint of
performance. It seems that, of the six participants, his
teaching practice is also the least self-reflective and least
flexible. Perhaps formal teacher training could enrich his
understanding of student-centered practices and provide
him with strategies for teaching more creatively.
Understanding creative teaching could also help Felix con-
nect to the many facets of his teacher self rather than
hanging onto his past performance role.
The Overlapping Teacher Self (Performer,
Teacher, and Creator)
Five out of six interviewees (excluding Felix) spoke on the
importance of understanding their own teaching “selves,”
including using their own embodiment to discover move-
ment (Stinson 2010), being aware of their choices as tea-
chers, challenging how they were taught, and consistently
reflecting on and questioning their teaching practices. More
specifically, Beth spoke on the importance of “knowing
what you’re about” in terms of values. For her, it is “not
about the material. It’s about knowing how you inhabit and
how you understand your role.” Translating these beliefs to
the classroom requires flexibility of practice and critical
decision-making skills, which is linked to acknowledging
teaching as a creative process and the practice of self-
reflection; these same five interviewees are also the teachers
who practice self-reflection when it comes to their teaching
practices.
For Felix, it seems that the distance he perceives between
his performing and teaching selves might be connected to
his less flexible teaching practices and his technically
focused class content. As discussed earlier, the separation
between teaching and performing selves creates
a disconnect between creative and technical practices,
which is evidenced in Felix’s teaching methods (Wilson
2016). The pieces of Felix’s performance experience that
he does bring to the classroom revolve around the high-
pressure situation of performance and maintaining industry
standards. Although an understanding of industry practices
is important, such insistent focus on teaching to the indus-
try could be stifling his creative abilities as a performing
teacher (Alterowitz 2014).
For Anna, Beth, Daniel, and Elliot, it was clear that their
dancing selves were not separate from their teaching selves.
Their performances, choreographic works, and classes they
take all enrich and inform their teaching practices. Daniel
even agreed with Stevens and Huddy (2016) on the idea
that teaching is in itself a performative experience; his
teaching self requires performative voices and actions that
appear when he steps in the classroom.
Other teachers have found more artistic connections
between performing and teaching. Beth understands per-
formance and classwork as placed within a community.
She wants her students to recognize each other through
awareness and presence. Similarly, Daniel boiled perfor-
mance quality down to intention, presence, and fulfilling
the two. He also spoke on dynamics, connection to the
space, and the importance of inviting an audience to
participate. He defined performance as “fully experien-
cing what you’re doing,” which is connected to the per-
formative idea of embodiment (Stevens and Huddy
2016). It was Elliot’s performance experience that shifted
his perception of what it meant to be a “dancing person”
and caused him to be more inclusive as a teacher. The act
of repeating choreography over many performances led
Elliot to question the integrity of the moment versus
going through the motions (i.e., the importance of
embodiment).
When speaking of the value of performance experience
to the classroom, however, Elliot did not think that perfor-
mance experience was necessary to understand how to teach
technique. Rather, “it is how you translate all those things
you’ve been involved in and bring them forward.”
Conversely, Beth believed that an instructor does need
a broad performative experience to understand the act of
dancing, agreeing with Huddy and Stevens (2011). Perhaps
as technique classes encompass more creative, performative,
and collaborative opportunities, students will leave their
training with a better view of dance as a performance art,
giving them the wide range of embodied perspectives neces-
sary to teach effectively. The more creative class becomes,
the better prepared students will be, not only for choreo-
graphic and performance opportunities, but also for the
creative act of teaching.
Teaching as a Creative Process
As discussed earlier, teaching as a creative process is a reflective
practice in which one stays curious, takes risks, and pursues
S. Alaways
originality (Nicoll and Oreck 2013). Teachers who teach crea-
tively use varied techniques and promote students’ creativity
by allowing and responding to their individual experiences.
The interviewees each had their own versions of always-
changing teaching processes. As a part of understanding the
creative nature of teaching, Anna, Beth, and Caroline
reflected that there are many ways of going about teaching,
with no way being the best (Nicoll and Oreck 2013).
Most simply, Anna and Caroline seek to be aware of and are
consistently reevaluating their mannerisms. Five out of six inter-
viewees (excluding Felix) also questioned material through their
own embodied experiences and exploration. They each
described ways they used embodiment to better understand
material, which is imperative according to Susan Stinson (2010).
The first five participants (excluding Felix) recognized
the need for their students to be prepared for more than
just a performance career, using terms such as “life in
dance” and “dance artist,” rising to the call for technique
teachers to treat performance, teaching, and choreography
as equal professions (Musil 2010). They desire technique
class to change how students are living their lives, allowing
them to stand up with clarity, find personal power, and feel
invincible through their training. Thus, the first five parti-
cipants demonstrated diverse goals for the technique class
that expand far beyond technical skills alone. To these aims,
Daniel teaches content beyond pure technique, incorporat-
ing choreographic forms, quality investigation, and impro-
visation as well. Beth also regularly uses improvisation in
technique class.
Felix, however, seemed to focus most of his energy on
preparing students for performance and future careers in
the dance industry. Although “preparing for a life in dance”
includes performance, focusing on performance as the only
goal narrows the opportunities for students to expand their
creative skills and adaptive abilities (Alterowitz 2014). Felix
also seems to be perpetuating industry standards, as he
speaks of the industry as the ultimate endpoint to which
he teaches. Although he mentions a shift between classical
training and contemporary training that gives students “hol-
istic knowledge to go out into the world with,” he seems to
teach under “rules and regulations” of the dance studio for
the purpose of being noticed by the industry.
Conversely, Anna and Caroline work against certain indus-
try practices to create autonomous, critical, creative dancers
who are not fodder for creative practices or hired bodies for
choreographers to consume. For Elliot, building dancers’ crea-
tive autonomy means encouraging them to make mistakes,
which is an important part of viewing class as an ongoing
process (Tiller 2014). Dealing with mistakes requires integrity,
honesty, comfort, and confidence in creative problem solving.
When looking at the instructors’ creative focuses in the
classroom, common themes surrounding performance theory
such as embodiment, intention, presence, ownership, decision
making, and discovery were present (Lobel and Brodie 2012;
Kelly 2016). Beth talked about “the shortcuts to performing” as
the elements of technique class that make one “brilliant” even
221
without rigorous training experience. For her, performance does
not have anything to do with the content itself, but with an
embodied understanding of the material, which supports her
values for contemporary training: inhabiting, being, and doing.
Caroline also spoke on understanding one’s own physi-
cality through sensation, doing, and recognizing. In addi-
tion, she explained decentralization—an idea that dancing is
about finding the essence of the work, not about the per-
former (Louis and Nikolais 2005). Caroline also mentioned
the “spirit of dancing” in terms of the elements that are in
relationship with the body: the totality of mind, body, and
spirit. Where other instructors (Beth, Daniel, and Elliot)
mentioned embodiment, Caroline spoke on grain: energy
moving through the body, intentionally focused and con-
trolled (Kelly 2016). Understanding the relationship of
totality, grain, and decentralization allows dancers to
explore choreography creatively and uniquely (Kelly 2016).
Creative teaching not only supports student creativity, but
enables instructors to see teaching as a flexible, changing
process. Teaching creatively supports the openness and ques-
tioning needed for student-centered teaching while allowing
space for the teacher to interrogate his or her classroom
practice. Creative teaching also connects a teacher’s past crea-
tive experiences with his or her current role as facilitator.
CONCLUSION
The limitations of this research include a singular method
of data collection that was based on the teachers’ opinions
of how they teach and not on the reality of how they work
in the classroom (Klockare, Gustafsson, and Nordin-Bates
2011). It would strengthen the study to experience each
teacher’s practices to get a better view of how their experi-
ences are shaping their classroom environments.
Triangulating the interviews and class observations with
student focus groups would in turn strengthen the research.
It would also be helpful to hear from current students
regarding what they consider effective and what they feel
they are prepared for. Students could be asked to define
their teachers’ pedagogical beliefs to see the value of explicit
pedagogy in the classroom. Student perceptions would also
help in understanding the differences between teachers’
aims and students’ expectations. A further study could
focus on comparing students’ previous classroom experi-
ences with their current careers to see how their technique
teachers prepared them for their lives in dance.
Whereas this study specifically sought out a sample of exemp-
lary teachers, another study could be broader in its sampling and
include teachers who do not use student-centered teaching prac-
tices. When compared to the teachers in this study, a broader
sampling might give a clearer indication of what these six tea-
chers are doing that make them inspiring, creative teachers.
It quickly became clear that the experience teachers bring to
the technique class is an amalgamation of their whole dancing
selves. The interconnectedness of the dancing self (which
includes content knowledge, pedagogical training, performance
experience, past technical training, current dance practices, and
222 Professional Performance Experience Versus Pedagogical Knowledge
personal beliefs surrounding dance, teaching, and learning)
makes it difficult to separate performance from teaching, class-
work from dancing, and creativity from technicality. The dis-
cussion became less about imparting skills gained through
performance experience and more about how performance
experience adds to the teachers’ understanding of their own
creative power.
This study began with a question of the optimum com-
bination of knowledge and experiences to support effective
contemporary technique teaching. After investigating six
teachers’ blends of experience, it seems that the quantity
of each does not matter as much as the wide range of
experiences, the understanding of their connectivity, and
the willingness of the individual to continually question his
or her practices. Pedagogical knowledge can be self-
researched, self-explored, and just as effective as formal
training if the instructor adopts a self-reflective, flexible
attitude toward his or her practice. It is also clear that
implementing a blend of strategies is more effective than
relying solely on one belief.
When considering Caroline and Elliot and their similar
teaching practices, an artist who becomes an educator (Elliot)
and an educator who becomes an artist (Caroline) are equally
valuable instructors. Even though teachers’ backgrounds affect
how they interact with content knowledge, their critical under-
standing of their backgrounds allows them to reflect on their
past experiences and view their content with creative power. As
Elliot explained, the exact experiences one lists on a resume are
only relevant to those hiring. When it comes to the classroom,
what is important is how one is translating those experiences to
his or her students.
There is a clear connection between pedagogical
knowledge and furthering dance as a creative art form.
Acquiring pedagogical knowledge in a self-reflective man-
ner allows teachers to dissect, question, and change their
practices. Pedagogical knowledge gives them the range of
options necessary to have flexible, responsive practices.
Having the in-the-moment ability to respond to students’
needs creates an open, dialogical classroom environment
where students’ needs inform and shape the teaching. In
turn, teaching becomes a process of evaluating and shift-
ing that closely resembles a creative process, creating
space for the performing-artist self of the teacher to
emerge. The creative process is modeled for the student,
who becomes an intricate part of the teaching practice
and begins to understand the questioning and decision
making that creativity entails.
The teacher as artist (professional, choreographer, and
performer) is valuable to understanding teaching as
a creative act and the importance of a creative classroom.
Acknowledging a teacher’s creativity might lessen the per-
ceived career gap between teaching and performance and
challenge the notion of what it means to be an excellent
technique teacher with the appreciation that the necessary
skills of a performer often match the necessary skills of
a teacher: communication, flexibility, self-awareness,
engaging an audience, technical embodiment, and consid-
ering complex connections between art and craft.
ORCID
Sarah Alaways http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6304-8859
REFERENCES
Alterowitz, Gretchen. 2014. “Toward a Feminist Ballet Pedagogy: Teaching
Strategies for Ballet Technique Classes in the Twenty-First Century.”
Journal of Dance Education 14 (1):8–17. doi:10.1080/
15290824.2013.824579.
Ambrosio, Nora. 2013. The Excellent Instructor and the Teaching of
Dance Technique. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Barr, Sherrie, and Wendy Oliver. 2016. “Feminist Pedagogy, Body
Image, and the Dance Technique Class.” Research in Dance
Education 17 (2):97–112. doi:10.1080/14647893.2016.1177008.
Booth, Eric. 2003. “What is a Teaching Artist?” Teaching Artist Journal 1
(1):5-12.
Brookfield, Stephen. 2015. The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and
Responsiveness in the Classroom. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dragon, Donna A. 2015. “Creating Cultures of Teaching and Learning:
Conveying Dance and Somatic Education Pedagogy.” Journal of Dance
Education 15 (1):25–32. doi:10.1080/15290824.2014.995015.
Fortin, Sylvie. 1998. “Somatics: A Tool for Empowering Modern Dance
Teachers.” In Dance, Power, and Difference: Critical and Feminist
Perspectives on Dance Education, edited by Sherry B. Shapiro,
49–74. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Freire, Paulo. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, UK: Pelican Books.
Gibbons, Elizabeth. 2007. Teaching Dance: The Spectrum of Styles.
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Huddy, Avril, and Kym Stevens. 2011. “The Teaching Artist: A Model for
University Dance Teacher Training.” Research in Dance Education 12
(2):157–71. doi:10.1080/14647893.2011.579596.
Kelly, Marcia Wardell. 2016. A Dancer’s Pocket Guide to Embodied
Performance. Rhinebeck, NY: Epigraph Books.
Klockare, Ellinor, Henrik Gustafsson, and Sanna M. Nordin-Bates. 2011. “An
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of How Professional Dance
Teachers Implement Psychological Skills Training in Practice.” Research in
Dance Education 12 (3):277–93. doi:10.1080/14647893.2011.614332.
Lobel, Elin E., and Julie A. Brodie. 2012. Dance and Somatics: Mind–Body
Principles of Teaching and Performance. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Louis, Murray, and Alwin Nikolais. 2005. The Nikolais/Louis Dance
Technique: A Philosophy and Method of Modern Dance: Including
“The Unique Gesture” Text. London, UK: Routledge.
Mainwaring, Lynda M., and Donna H. Krasnow. 2010. “Teaching the
Dance Class: Strategies to Enhance Skill Acquisition, Mastery, and
Positive Self-Image.” Journal of Dance Education 10 (1):14–21.
doi:10.1080/15290824.2010.10387153.
Musil, Pamela S. 2010. “Perspectives on an Expansive Postsecondary
Dance.” Journal of Dance Education 10 (4):111–21. doi:10.1080/
15290824.2010.529762.
S. Alaways
Nicoll, Jessica, and Barry Oreck. 2013. “Can the ‘Best Practice’ Trend
Leave Room for the Unknown?” Journal of Dance Education 13
(3):92–98. doi:10.1080/15290824.2013.800945.
Overby, Lynnette Young. 2014. “The Impact of Professional Learning
Programs: A Case Study of Dance Teaching Artists.” In Hybrid Lives
of Teaching Artists in Dance and Theatre Arts: A Critical Reader,
edited by Mary Elizabeth Anderson and Doug Risner, 19–30.
Amherst, NY: Cambria.
Quin, Edel, Sonia Rafferty, and Charlotte Tomlinson. 2015. Safe Dance
Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Redding, Emma, Naomi Lefebvre Sell, and Alison Curtis-Jones. 2016.
“The Value of Sharing Practitioner Wisdom in a Learning and
Teaching Context for Training Contemporary Dancers in a
Conservatoire.” Journal of Dance and Somatic Practices 8
(2):219–34. doi:10.1386/jdsp.8.2.219_1.
Roche, Jennifer, and Avril Huddy. 2015. “Creative Adaptations:
Integrating Feldenkrais Principles in Contemporary Dance
Technique to Facilitate the Transition into Tertiary Dance
Education.” Theatre, Dance and Performance Training 6
(2):145–58. doi:10.1080/19443927.2015.1027452.
Saldaña, Johnny. 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.
London, UK: Sage.
Sims, Meredith, and Heather Erwin. 2012. “A Set of Descriptive Case Studies
of Four Dance Faculty Members’ Pedagogical Practices.” Journal of
Dance Education 12 (4):131–40. doi:10.1080/15290824.2012.654106.
Stanton, Erica. 2011. “Doing, Re-Doing, and Undoing: Practice, Repetition,
and Critical Evaluation as Mechanisms for Learning in a Dance
Technique Class ‘Laboratory’.” Theatre, Dance and Performance
Training 2 (1):86–98. doi:10.1080/19443927.2011.545253.
Stevens, Kym, and Avril Huddy. 2016. “The Performance in Context
Model: A 21st Century Tertiary Dance Teaching Pedagogy.”
Research in Dance Education 17 (2):67–85. doi:10.1080/
14647893.2016.1178714.
Stinson, Susan W. 2010. “Questioning Our Past and Building
a Future: Teacher Education in Dance for the 21st Century.”
Journal of Dance Education 10 (4):136–44. doi:10.1080/
15290824.2010.529764.
Tiller, Chrissie. 2014. “Preparing the Reflective Practitioner: Theatre
Practice as Reflective Process.” In Hybrid Lives of Teaching Artists in
Dance and Theatre Arts: A Critical Reader, edited by Mary
Elizabeth Anderson and Doug Risner, 117–32. Amherst, NY:
Cambria.
Warburton, Edward C. 2008. “Beyond Steps: The Need for Pedagogical
Knowledge in Dance.” Journal of Dance Education 8 (1):7–12.
doi:10.1080/15290824.2008.10387353.
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning,
and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Drid. 2011. Teaching Dancing with Ideokinetic Principles.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Wilmerding, Virginia, and Donna Krasnow. 2015. Motor Learning and
Control for Dance: Principles and Practices for Performers and
Teachers. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wilson, Lisa. 2016. “Dance Pedagogy.” Journal of Dance Education 16
(1):20–26. doi:10.1080/15290824.2015.1045513.
223