Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To See and to Share: Evaluating the Dance Experience in Education

  • Chapter
International Handbook of Research in Arts Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbook of Research in Arts Education ((SIHE,volume 16))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allen, D. (1995). The tuning protocol: A process for reflection. Providence RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, J. B. (2002). Self-appraisal and pedagogical practice: Performance-based assessment approaches. Dance Research Journal, 34 (2), 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • ArtsConnection (1993). Talent beyond words (Report to the Jacob Javits gifted and talented students education program, United States Department of Education, #R206A30046). New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Dance Council. (1997). Australian guidelines for dance teachers. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://www.ausdance.org.au/outside/interest/guidelines/index.html.

  • Baker, T., Bevin, B., & Admon, N. (2001). Final evaluation report on the Center for Arts Education’s New York City partnerships for arts and education program. New York: Education Development Center/Center for Children and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batton, B. W. (2005). A case study: shall we dance? Establishing an inquiry-based partnership. In B. Rich (Ed.), Partnering arts education: A working model from ArtsConnection (pp. 27–31). New York: Dana Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley Carroll School. (2004). Sequential dance curriculum and evaluation criteria, grades 5–12.Unpublished document. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonbright, J. M. (2000). Dance: The discipline. Arts Education Policy Review, 100 (2), 31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonbright, J. M., & Faber R. (Eds.). (2004). Research priorities for dance education: A report to the nation. Bethesda, MD: National Dance Education Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booker, T. Washington High School (2005). Student report card. Unpublished assessment form. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Arts Academy (2002). Student evaluation form. Unpublished assessment form.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, K. K. (2002). Informing and reforming dance education research. In R. Deasy (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student and academic achievement social development (pp. 16–18). Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresler, L. (Ed.). (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds: Toward embodied teaching and learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1998). Appendix D: Assessment and evaluation. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/dan11_12/apdint.htm.

  • Byrnes, P., & Parke, B. (1982). Creative products scale: Detroit public schools. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, S. (1999, Spring). The art of evaluation: Transforming the research process into a creative journey. Dance/USA Journal. Retrieved March 24, 2005 from http://www.forthearts.org.

  • Center for Educator Development in the Fine Arts. (2005). Sample portfolio design for dancers. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://finearts.esc20.net/dance/dance_assessment/dance_as_example.html.

  • Consortium of National Arts Education Organizations. (1994). National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief States School Officers. (1997). Arts education assessment consortium year-end report & collection of refined exercises [CD ROM]. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief States School Officers. (2005). SCASS projects. Retrieved August 2, 2005 from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/SCASS/Projects.

  • Dalton School (2004). High school dance department procedures and dance report. Unpublished evaluation document. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deasy, R. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student and academic achievement social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elam, A., & Doughty, R. (1988). Guidelines for the identification of artistically gifted and talented students (Rev. ed.). Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineberg. C. (2004a). Creating islands of excellence: Arts education as a partner in school reform. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineberg. C. (2004b). AileyCamp Berkeley/Oakland. Unpublished Evaluation Report. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giffen, M., Almendarez, L., & Garofoli, W. (2004, October). Dance teacher competition guide 2005. Dance Teacher, 116–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingrasso, S. H. (1991). North Carolina: State of the arts. Design for Arts in Education, 93 (1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingrasso, S. H. (2005). Promoting deep learning in dance technique: A case for using the Language of Dance. Unpublished report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. (2002). Somatic knowledge: The body as content and methodology in dance education. Journal of Dance Education, 2 (4), 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagood, T. K. (2001). Dance to read or dance to dance? Arts Education Policy Review 102 (5), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J. L. (1992). Tradition, challenge and the backlash: Gender education through dance. In L. Senelick (Ed.), Gender and performance (pp. 223–238). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, J., Kinder, K., Lord, P., Stott, A., Schagen, I., & Haynes, J. (2000). Arts education in secondary schools: Effects and effectiveness. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himley, M., & Carini, P. F. (Eds.). (2000) From another angle: Children’s strengths and school standards. The Prospect Center’s Descriptive Review of the Child/the Practitioner Inquiry Series. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, R. (2004). Summary of large-scale arts partnership evaluations. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson Guest, A. (1984). Dance notation: The process of recording movement on paper. New York: Dance Horizons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1997). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education. Aurora, CO: McRel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr-Berry, J. (2005). The application of national dance standards in higher education dance programs. Journal of Dance Education, 5 (3), 80–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laban, R. (1956). Principles of dance and movement notation. London: MacDonald & Evans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavender, L. (1996). Dancers talking dance: Critical evaluation in the choreography class. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, B. (Ed.). (1997). The dancer’s destiny: Facing the limits, realities and solutions regarding the dancer in transition. Laussane: International Organization for the Transition of Professional Dancers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, L., & Borstel, J. (2003). Critical response process: A method for getting useful feedback on anything you make, from dance to dessert. Washington, DC: Liz Lerman Dance Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libman, K. (2004). Some thoughts on arts advocacy: Separating the hype from reality. Arts Education Policy Review, 105 (3), 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGreevy-Nichols, S. (2003). Documenting the process. Dance Teacher, June, 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, C. (1999). Basic guide to outcomes-based evaluation for nonprofit organizations with very limited resources. Downloaded September 1, 2005 from http://ww.managementhelp.org/evaluatn/outcomes.htm.

  • National Assessment Governing Board (1994). Arts education assessment and exercise specifications. Retrieved December 20, 2004 from http://www.nagb.org/pubs/artsed.pdf.

  • National Association of Schools of Dance (2003). The NASD accreditation process. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://nasd.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/PIM%202003-NASD/PIM-Part1-NASD2003.pdf.

  • National Center for Education Statistics (1995). Degrees and other formal awards conferred” surveys, and integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (1998). The NAEP 1997 arts report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum Council (1992). Physical education: Non-statutory guidance. London: NCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York City Department of Education (2005). Blueprint for teaching and learning in the arts: Dance grades pre K-12. New York: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • New World School of the Arts (2005). Student examination form. Unpublished evaluation document. Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2003). Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://ww.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/assessment/exemplar/index.html.

  • Office for Standards in Education (2002). Inspecting dance 11–16 with guidance on self-evaluation. Retrieved on May 2, 2005 from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk.

  • Oreck, B. A., Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (2004). Validity, reliability and equity issues in an observational talent assessment process in the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27 (2), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreck, B. A., Baum, S. M., & McCartney, H. (2001). Artistic talent development for urban youth: The promise and the challenge. Storrs: CT, National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlafi, A. (2004). Artists working in partnership with schools: Quality indicators and advice for planning, commissioning and delivery. Arts Council of England. Retrieved March 12, 2005 from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/documents/publications/phpIi3JsA.pdf.

  • Parish, M. (2001). Integrating technology into teaching and learning of dance. Journal of Dance Education, 1 (1), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perpich Center for Arts Education (2005). Research, assessment and curriculum. Retrieved September 1, 2005 from http://www.pcae.k12.mn.us/rac/pubs/facs/dance.pdf.

  • Popat, S. (2002). The triad project: Using internet communications to challenge students’ understandings of choreography. Research in Dance Education, 3 (1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posey, E. (2002). Dance education in dance schools in the private sector: Meeting the demands of the market place. Journal of Dance Education, 2 (2), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prioleau, D. (2001). Leadership of the arts in higher education. Journal of Dance Education, 1 (2), 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, T. (1996). National standards: A view from the arts education associations. Arts Education Policy Review, 97 (5), 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remer, J. (1996). Beyond enrichment: Building effective arts partnerships with schools and your community. New York: ACA Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remer, J. (2004). Portraying student learning in dance and music: The final year of the PS 6/ArtsConnection Annenberg arts partnership. A report in progress. Unpublished Evaluation Report. New York: New York City Partnerships for Arts and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (1994a). National standards for arts education: The emperor’s new clothes. Arts Education Policy Review, 96 (2), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (1994b). The right moves: Challenges of dance assessment. Arts Education Policy Review, 96 (1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (2000a). Arts education in the information age: A new place for somatic wisdom. Arts Education Policy Review, 101 (6), 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (2000b). Moving lessons: Margaret H’Doubler and the beginning of dance in American Education. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saskatchewan Education (1991). Student evaluation: A teacher handbook. Retrieved April 1, 2005 from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs//policy/studeval/index.html.

  • Saskatchewan Education (1994). Arts education: A curriculum guide for the secondary level. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, D. W. (2003). Authentic assessment in the arts: Empowering students and teachers. Journal of Dance Education, 3 (2), 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Autard, J. M. (1994). The art of dance in education. London: A.&C. Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, M. (2003). Documenting student learning: Making the invisible visible. Journal of Dance Education, 3 (3), 107–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Standards Site (2005). The power of arts assessment in teaching and learning handbook. Retrieved May 15, 2005 from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk.

  • Stinson, S. W. (2005). Why are we doing this? Journal of Dance Education, 5 (3), 82–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Education (1995). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools. Washington, D.C. National Center for Education Statistics. (Office of Educational Research and Improvement No. NCES 95–082.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, E. (2000). The dance on paper: the effect of notation-use on learning and development in dance. Research in Dance Education, 1 (2), 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, E. C. (2002). From talent identification to multidimensional assessment: Toward new models of evaluation in dance education. Research in Dance Education, 3 (2), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2000). The arts and academic improvement: What the evidence shows. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34 (3/4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, F. (1999). Partnerships for learning: A guide to evaluating arts education projects. London: Regional Arts Boards and the Arts Council of England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

A Taiwanese Perspective on Assessment and Evaluation in Dance

  • Chinese Taipei Ministry of Education (2001). Education reform initiatives: Nine-year integrated curricula to be enforced in 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2003). Movement and dance in early childhood (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y. (2004). Developing generalist teachers’ understanding of dance teaching in early childhood education in Taiwan. Paper presented at the National Dance Education Organization Conference, Merging Worlds: Dance, Education, Society and Politics, Michigan State University, October 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. (2003). Drawing and painting: Children and visual representation (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyles, J. R., Hargreaves, L., Merry, R., Paterson, F., & Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003). Interactive teaching in the primary school: Digging deeper into meanings. Philadelphia, PA: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen, H.-W. (2005). Executive Director of the Cloud Gate Dance School, unpublished interview with David Mead, December 5, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut, U.S.A.

    Barry Oreck

Authors
  1. Barry Oreck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, U.S.A.

    Liora Bresler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oreck, B. (2007). To See and to Share: Evaluating the Dance Experience in Education. In: Bresler, L. (eds) International Handbook of Research in Arts Education. Springer International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-3052-9_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation