Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the relevant theories, the related literature and studies on foreign and

local resources, and the definition of technical terms used in the study.

Relevant Theories

Many of the publications utilized to inform physical education subject were written or

co-authored by Doug Risner, a dance education advocate and professor at Wayne State

University in Detroit, Michigan. Doug has also served on the National Dance Education

Organization's board of directors, where he held the positions of Executive Secretary (until 2006)

and Editor of Conference Proceedings. He is presently the Senior Program Consultant for

NDEO's Online Professional Development Institute and a pioneer in dance education policy and

practice research.

M.E. Anderson and Doug Risner published "A Survey of Teaching Artists in Dance and

Theater: Implications for Preparation, Curriculum, and Professional Degree Programs" in Arts

Education Policy Review in 2012. The authors argue that the most significant negative elements

affecting dance instruction in schools are (1) a lack of preparation, (2) workplace concerns and

obstacles, and (3) contradictory attitudes concerning teaching artist professionalization and

accreditation. This will be a very essential resource that discusses credentialing programs and

supports the claim that teacher preparation programs in dance are not just underrepresented, but

also in desperate need of reform. Similarly, the essay provides an excellent account of the path
that dance in higher education has taken since its start, as well as some insight into the reasons

behind this path.

Risner discusses the four primary challenges in the field of dance education that exist

today in his 2010 article "Dance Education Matters: Rebuilding Postsecondary Dance Education

for Twenty-First Century Relevance and Resonance." These challenges are curricular equity, the

expansion of dance education programs, graduate study opportunities, and national/international

leadership and awareness. This article focuses on unique opportunities that exist and do not exist

in the realm of dance education. It explains why these initiatives are underfunded or non-existent

(because professional development is hard to facilitate in small programs, such as dance).

Risner published an essay in 2007 titled "Current Challenges for K to 12 Dance

Education and Development Perspectives from Higher Education," which influenced the

decision to write this research study. Risner analyzes the present situation of dance education and

how we need to adopt a more top-down approach to solving the stated problems. The author

emphasizes how improving education must begin at the university level and work its way down.

Curtis L. Carter is a philosophy professor at Marquette University who specializes in

aesthetics and conduct. Carter published an article titled "The State of Dance in Education: Past

and Present" in 1984, which, while antiquated in some ways, offers relative historical and linear

information that is still relevant today. The author addresses how dance in the school system has

been realigned and repurposed in ways that are damaging to the form. Although popular

acceptance of dance in school is increasing, this is not reflected in the curriculum. This article is

quite helpful for background information in the condition of dance in the sphere of education, as

well as the historical reforms that have occurred.

Foreign Literature

Bruner (1960) adopts a different view and believes a child (of any age) is capable of

understanding complex information: 'We begin with the hypothesis that any subject can be

taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development.'

(p. 33). Bruner (1960) explained how this was possible through the concept of the spiral

curriculum. This involved information being structured so that complex ideas can be taught at a

simplified level first, and then re-visited at more complex levels later on.

Bruner (1961) proposes that learners construct their own knowledge and do this by

organizing and categorizing information using a coding system. Bruner believed that the most

effective way to develop a coding system is to discover it rather than being told by the teacher.

The concept of discovery learning implies that students construct their own knowledge for

themselves (also known as a constructivist approach). The role of the teacher should not be to

teach information by rote learning, but instead to facilitate the learning process. This means that

a good teacher will design lessons that help students discover the relationship between bits of

information. To do this a teacher must give students the information they need, but without

organizing for them. The use of the spiral curriculum can aid the process of discovery learning.

Therefore, subjects would be taught at levels of gradually increasing difficultly (hence the spiral

analogy). Ideally, teaching this way should lead to children being able to solve problems by

themselves.
Local Literature

Corpuz (2008) explains the Spiral Progression Approach that as learning progresses,

more and more details are introduced. While at the same time they are related to the basics which

are reemphasized/rediscovered many times for connection and mastery.

Igcasama, R.M. (2021) The study showed that most teachers and students were in favor

of the implementation of the said curriculum. One of the teacher respondents noted that “The K

to 12 programs will greatly help us develop and upgrade our educational system in the

Philippines, so we may be able to compete globally with our students who are fully equipped

with the 21st-century skills”, another teacher respondent said, “it provides additional training for

the students in preparing for college.” According to a student respondent, “K to 12 Program can

enhance and learn more or know more about mathematics and others”, another said that “this

new curriculum will prepare the students in college and improve the student's skills.” However,

they admitted that their performances were much better using the old curriculum. In the

qualitative part of the study, the responses were categorized. The study found out that the Spiral

curriculum had greatly influenced the curriculum, particularly the content and transitions of

subjects, the secondary schools, the learners, and especially the teachers. Based on the findings,

teachers were still adapting to the new curriculum. They needed more time and training to master

all the fields and learn new teaching strategies because it is challenging to teach something that

does not have the necessary mastery. They can teach other branches of their significant subjects

without an in-depth discussion because it is not their specialization.

 Perez, Bongcales, and Bellen (2020 pp. 11-22) Spiral progression approach is grounded

on various theories, principles, and philosophies in education. It is anchored on learner-centered

pedagogy. Teachers and students hold both positive and negative perceptions towards the

implementation of a spiral progression curriculum. Students concerns surround more on their

interest and awareness of the sequenced competencies. Highly esteemed teachers have a better

implementation of a spiral progression approach. The spiral curriculum generally can produce

positive cognitive learning outcomes. In the implementation of the spiral progression approach,

recommendations encompass two key aspects, i.e., 1) enhance teacher’s knowledge on

curriculum and pedagogy in preservice and in-service training and 2) teachers should ensure

students’ mastery of learning. Gaps in the literature are noticeable, i.e., need for more studies that

would look into the spiral curriculum, specifically the teaching methods used in the

implementation, students’ perception and empirical outcomes to provide a bigger data pool for

its effectiveness. Lastly, it is also suggested that spiral curricula of subject areas other than

Mathematics and Science along different educational levels should also be studied to capture a

broader picture.

Related Studies

Dance Education in Universities

If you examine the historical history of dance education inside the university spectrum,

you will see a unique pattern develop; there were early objectives that sparked the field, steady

expansion, some diversification of the topic, followed by a return to the original ambitions

(Risner, 2010, p. 123). Although the historical journey is relatively young, it follows a pattern
that many professions in the upper education spectrum do. What is intriguing, however, is the

emphasis that many dance scholars place on the field's lack of history (or, more accurately, its

truncated past), but Risner (2010) proposes that "paying greater attention to where we are is vital

for dance education's function in higher education" (p. 123). According to Risner, dance

academics focus too much attention on where we haven't been and why we aren't where we think

we should be (in academia and society), rather than where we are and how we may get there.

Keeping this in mind, Risner (2010) discusses four distinct challenges that the arts in higher

education - and, in particular, dance - are currently confronted with: curricular equity

complications, the expansion (or lack thereof) of dance education, nominal graduate study

opportunities, and a lack of national leadership (p. 124). For the sake of clarity in this research

paper, I will concentrate on the current lack of graduate programs in dance education; however,

the other three issues (curricular equity, lack of expansion in dance education, and lack of

national leadership) will be addressed within the context of this topic's exploration.

Before digging into the present condition of dance in education, it is necessary to first

review the history of this discipline in order to understand why the obstacles stated in the

preceding paragraph exist. Berkely noted in 2004 that the majority of dance instruction in US

schools, colleges, and institutions between 1900 and 1945 was co-curricular or extracurricular in

character (as cited in Risner, 2012, p. 2). These participants saw the need of incorporating dance

into the educational system, and so the early goals of finding a place in academics began. There

was a consistent increase in the number of dance participants who wanted to study at the higher

education level over this time period, however the directions were slightly separated. A group of

students and instructors exploited their relationship with dance to gain personal experience and

engage in creative performance (Carter, 1984, p. 294). Only after World War II, when dance
teaching became formally recognized as an area of study in universities, was there a significant

movement in mindset toward professionalization and distinct diversification of the disciplines of

study available within the discipline of dance (Risner, 2012, p. 3). However, as Carter (1984)

stated, despite great progress, there is still a stigma discovered and boundaries placed within the

field of dance education - much like there is for any other ‘specialized' subject. Dance is not a

"high priority" in curricula and is one of the first to face the effects of budget cuts (p. 295). The

discipline has returned to its roots: dance and dance education have arrived at a point where the

original goals are still at the forefront of scholars' requirements, but they are supported by the

subject's journey and process.

One of the most significant issues that specialist professions, such as dance, must

confront within the university spectrum is a lack of representation. According to Warburton and

Stanek (2004), "among the 1.1 million professors in postsecondary institutions in the United

States, dance faculty comprise less than one-quarter of one percent of the entire faculty

population" (as cited in Risner, 2007, p. 18). To put this in context, this means that just (roughly)

2750 of the 1.1 million academics are linked with dance. Governing boards then exploit this

information to justify budget cuts and a lack of representation in the school system, when these

figures should, in reality, stimulate the installation of greater resources to enable a tiny faculty

thrive in the higher education sector. Similarly, there are considerable differences in course

curriculum in each particular dance program across the United States. Many curricula include

technical dance instruction, writing and creative process, history, and anatomy lessons. Aesthetic

awareness, notation, anthropology, and therapy are frequently mentioned as well (Carter 1984, p.

294). The differences across programs present a barrier that might be difficult to overcome - how
can we compare one dance program to another and justify spending when there is a lack of

language and standards in the curriculum?

It is critical to recognize that dance in higher education as a whole must come to grips

with where we sit in society and on governing bodies; variations in the field generate an

incredible feeling of variety but may also succeed in isolating each program from one another.

This is especially true when comparing the availability of dance education programs to dance

composition or dance performance programs. When it comes to funding dance departments and

staffing possibilities, building and sustaining BFA (performing and composition) programs tends

to pull the majority of the resources, frequently "at the price of teacher preparation programs and

faculty hiring in dance education" (Risner, 2007, p. 18). This is a purposeful strategy; dance

performance and composition programs tend to attract more attention than education programs,

thus more money may be obtained if higher enrolment is guaranteed. Following this line of

thought, however, creates a never-ending loop for dance education programs that will become

increasingly impossible to escape; this is directly linked to governing bodies' constant "demands

for higher output that prioritize credit hours generated and number of majors." [This] pushes

departments toward ever-increasing, quantifiable, and measurable outcomes [and] for people in

the performing arts with busy production seasons and needs, this one-size-fits-all corporate

mentality ignores the extensive resources and personnel required to nurture and maintain quality

programs" (Risner, 2010, p. 125).

Credentialing and Teacher Training

All full-time teachers in public Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K to 12) schools are

required by law to have some sort of training and the proper credentials; and, of course, if a
parent is entrusting another human to provide the knowledge their child will receive, it is only

fitting that that person be highly qualified to teach. Although there is significant dispute over the

teacher training process and the problem of credentialing for normal (non-arts) teachers, the issue

becomes much more complicated when it comes to what should be necessary training for

specialized (arts) instructors. Is it necessary for the arts to be taught by state-certified teachers? Is

it enough to instruct artists? These, and many other concerns, are the motivating questions

underlying many of the dance education challenges that exist today. There is a peculiar

circumstance that exists specifically for arts instructors in K to 12 classrooms: in order to be

hired as a full-time teacher with benefits and better compensation, an individual must be

qualified according to state regulations, with subject expertise in their teaching field. In America,

however, relatively few states allow dance to be a 'teachable topic' in their state's teacher training

programs, and as a result, dance educators seldom have a venue to get certified in their area.

Dance teachers in K-12 schools are frequently recruited as "teaching artists" or "teachers aids" -

if they are hired at all - and do not receive the perks that fully trained teachers do. Schools lack

qualified dance instructors because the programs to reform them do not exist; the programs do

not exist because few schools hire skilled dance teachers.

Finding full-time dance teachers who are both highly qualified and highly driven to

become and stay certified has become an increasingly difficult issue for schools interested in

recruiting full-time dance teachers. Dance teachers are frequently subjected to "the scholastic

constraints [to which] the arts in education have been subjected," and these expectations

frequently "detract and impair artistic pleasure" (Curl, 2005, p. 53). Furthermore, there is a

question about what exactly constitutes a "well qualified" dance instructor; is it based on

technical skill, pedagogical practice, or a combination of the two? The phrase "highly qualified"
arose from the No Child Left Behind Act and is defined as follows by the National Education

Association:

1. The instructor has either acquired complete state certification (including alternative

certifications) or passed the state teacher licensure test.

2. A teacher is licensed to teach in the state in which they work.

3. The teacher's certification or license requirements have not been relaxed on an

emergency, temporary, or provisional basis.

In addition to these criteria, there are requirements for showing subject area expertise that

vary based on grade level and whether you are a novice or seasoned teacher. These criteria serve

as a driving factor in aiding dance education enthusiasts to work toward their objective of

introducing dance as a "teachable topic" across the country.

However, justifying these ideas is a challenging undertaking since "it is widely known

that arts educators have been under growing pressure over the last decade to defend their subject

and to establish their academic legitimacy - particularly to university degree validating

organizations" (Curl, 2005, p. 54). Validation committees assess the value of a degree program

using existing norms, which do not take into account the distinctiveness of the arts. Although

many independent organizations, most notably the National Art Education Association, have

developed a set of national standards for dance education (Kinderberger, 2010, p. 41), there is

still a need for "administrators, educators, arts councils, and parents to support strong policies for

funding, curriculum design, staff development, and program evaluations to educate the 'whole

child' in quality art instruction" (Kinderberger, 2010, p. 43).