The Challenge and Benefit of Evaluating Folk Dancing Quality

Abstract

The physical, social, and music attributes inherent to folk dancing make it an ideal component of music education curricula. The communal experience of folk dancing is unprecedented for many adults and children. These experiences are unique because folk dancing can foster individual and group learning through music, and noncompetitive play. There is, however, currently a lack of assessment tools available to music educators for evaluating student folk dancing quality. In this discussion, the author examines the genre through the eyes of dance and physical educators, and the extant recreational folk dancing community. This exploration leads to the identification of observable skills and aesthetic features of good-quality folk dancing. This information culminates in the Folk Dancing Proficiency Rubric, created by the author, for use in educational settings.

Keywords

assessment children elementary general music folk dance movement music education rubric

It is understandable that music educators may be less likely to consider dance-related movement assessment as equally necessary to the assessment of student music literacy, or the fine-motor movements required for singing or instrumental performances. For instance, there is an absence of assessment tools in the field of music education regarding the music movements used in folk dancing. It is important to note, however, that educational areas that receive little or no attention in terms of assessment are generally considered less necessary or less important than those that are regularly assessed (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2013; Saitlin, Oberman, Boyer, Hausman, & Wilson, 1988). The inclusion of folk dance and similar movement activities in music curricula compels assessment in that area. The good news is, we do not need to start from scratch—there are movement assessment guidelines present in the fields of physical and dance education that are adaptable to music education settings.

Movement Experiences Valued by Educators

Concepts about the nature of movement, dance, and self-expression are found in the work of musician Emile Jaques-Dalcroze. Dalcroze suggested that the ear, mind, and body are interconnected (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1915; Manifold, 2008). Dalcroze-inspired music educators promote the idea that music is best experienced through kinesthetic response; a merging of body and mind (Lewis, 1998; Manifold, 2008). The Dalcroze system of eurhythmics is built on meticulous training of a student’s musculature, the mind’s ability to imagine a movement, and the central nervous system’s ability to transmit movement orders to the necessary muscles for execution of controlled movements in response to music stimuli (Jaques-Dalcroze, 1915; Manifold, 2008). Hence, a primary goal of Dalcroze-inspired educators is to deepen and broaden student movement abilities through kinesthetic response to music obtained from dancers’ own movement choices (Ferguson, 2005; Lewis, 1998; Manifold, 2008).

Similarly, concepts that are currently valued for teaching movement and dance are evident in the work of two early 20th-century pioneers in that field, Margaret H’Doubler, and Rudolph Laban, respectively. Educators inspired by H’Doubler’s “search for substance in dance education” (Hagood, 2001, p. 32) focus on the physiology of movement including joint actions and neuromuscular relationships. H’Doubler believed that the body is an instrument for communicating ideas, thoughts, and feelings. Therefore, she placed emphasis on physiological awareness to teach dance as a substantive, whole-body educational experience and a meaningful artistic gesture (Hagood, 2001).

Educators inspired by the work of Rudolph Laban emphasize specific movement elements as an avenue for expressive movement—emanating from inside the dancer rather than to the sequencing of conventional dance steps (Ferguson, 2005; Lewis, 1998). Laban’s method operates from a belief about movement that is parallel to musicians’ beliefs about music creation and performing. That is, “movement is a language with its own comprehensible grammar and syntax” and that purposeful movement is capable of expressing what otherwise would be inexpressible through mere spoken word (Lewis, 1998, p. 118). Under this paradigm, Laban identified four features that form an organizational understanding of movement: time, force, space, and flow. For the present discussion, it is noteworthy that those four features are evident as components in standard folk dancing. For example: time—dancing across a musical phrase; force—the body tension required to support one’s partner; space—awareness of the dance formation and the other dancers; flow—connectedness of dance steps throughout the dance whole.

Laban methodology continues to affect instruction in physical and music education, especially at the elementary level (Ferguson, 2005). Although both educational fields employ Laban-based activities, they differ significantly in emphasis. Whereas physical educators focus on activities to teach body awareness and elemental movement control, music educators focus on activities that synchronize movements to music and the concept of visualizing music across space and time (Lewis, 1998). Most pertinent to the present discussion is Laban’s philosophy on students’ overall movement experiences. Laban believed that children must have opportunities to engage in movement for its own sake rather than to fulfill any utilitarian functions (Ferguson, 2005; Lewis, 1998). That notion aligns with the practice of teaching folk dance in music education settings where teachers emphasize the joy of movement to music independent of any formal ethnic or ceremonial conditions.

Rationale for Folk Dance in a Music Curriculum

Folk dancing is more than just movement to music—it is a purposeful blend of physical, cultural, historical, and artful music experience. Participation in multicultural folk dancing provides students with some exposure to cultures beyond their own: that is, the Russian Troika, West African Jambo, Israeli Zemer Atik (Weikart, 2003). Similarly, participation in folk dancing that is native to one’s own community is a natural way of connecting with neighbors and learning about regional and historical traditions. For example, contra-dance and English country-dance are extant folk dance genres throughout New England. Being a long-time resident in this region, this provides a natural justification for including those dances as part of my music lessons—they are musically and historically applicable to students with whom I commonly work. Although that may not apply to every student’s cultural background, it is a reflection of cultural traditions in the school’s geographic area. In any case, our students can benefit from participating in the pedagogical use of folk arts from their culture as well as cultures beyond their own.

Like many folk arts, folk dance survives in recreational and educational settings. For example, community centers sometimes offer open-attendance folk dances, and physical education classes may include a unit on square dancing (Country Dance & Song Society [CDSS], 2015; Gallagher, 1979; McCarthy, 1996). Music educators may employ folk dancing for a variety of pedagogical reasons. For example, folk dancing requires students to attend to music phrase lengths of various simple and compound meters, and to experience a variety of tempos both aurally and kinesthetically. Folk dance tunes often feature modal tonalities such as aeolian, dorian, or mixolydian that students may have little exposure to otherwise. The dances are often physically structured in a clear binary or ternary form. That structure adds corresponding visual and kinesthetic elements to the aural form present in the accompanying music. Also, the mastery of movement skills that require coordination, timing, balance, and group interaction are inherent to folk dancing and valued by musicians and educators in general.

Folk Dance Participation Versus Presentation

Folk dancing in educational settings typically function in what folklorist Felix Hoerburger defined as its “second-existence” (Chalfa Ruyter, 1995; Overholser, 2010). In its second-existence, folk dance is relegated to the interest of societal subgroups as a hobby, sport, or educational exercise. By contrast, Hoerburger defined folk dance in its “first-existence” as that which is integral to societal life; learned by lifelong interaction with other community members organically as they grow up. Because it is taken out of its original, traditional context, some enthusiasts express concern about the authenticity of folk dance in second-existence formats. However, the continued use of folk dance in physical, dance, and music education settings indicates a general consensus that folk dancing in its second-existence is a pedagogically valuable group activity.

Folk dancing in current community and recreational settings is often situated in a second-existence framework. That is, recreational folk dancers perform exclusively for their own enjoyment rather than as a formal, planned performance. The relative informality of recreational folk dancing enhances the natural, participatory nature of the activity; bystanders are encouraged to join in rather than be passive members of an audience (Turino, 2008). The participatory nature of folk dance is one reason why professional folk dance instructor Peter Amidon (2003) encouraged educators to host family folk dance events at their schools. The resulting communal experience from such an event is unprecedented for many adults and permits families to bond and learn together through noncompetitive play (Figure 1). Furthermore, folk dancing in schools provides one of the few educational opportunities for children to physically connect in a playful, noncompetitive activity. Folk dancing and similar general music class activities temporarily free students from the isolation of desks, chairs, and the social cliques that are common in school settings. These activities target students’ socioemotional learning: In a sentiment still echoed by recreational folk dance enthusiasts across the United States, legendary dance caller Ed Durlacher (1945), once proclaimed, “when we have entire families and neighborhoods dancing with each other and making friends by the touching of hands, we will have a much happier world in which to live” (CDSS, 2015).

Figure 1.

Folk dance resources for educators and communities.

Assessing Folk Dancing

While the group aesthetic is central to the folk dance experience, skillful folk dancing comprises more than just a group of dancers performing a coordinated series of dance steps. Like a good music performance, good folk dancing requires a genuineness of participation and a willingness from every participant to reach an appropriate group aesthetic. Some professional dancers refer to a “state of flow” in describing this otherwise ineffable performance aspect. In general, the flow state is a “positive enjoyable psychological state often linked to optimal performance” (Panebianco-Warrens, abstract, 2014). A popular, colloquial phrase for this state of mind is when an athlete or performer is described as being “in the zone.” Through investigation into ballet dancer’s experience of the flow state, researcher Panebianco-Warrens (2014) identified three recurring themes: the merging of action and awareness, autotelic experience (intrinsic reward), and the loss of self-consciousness. Those themes associated with the flow state provide additional guidelines for identifying measurable actions during folk dancing. That criteria can, in part, form the basis for an assessment tool. As the legendary folk dance scholar Douglas Kennedy (1953) suggested, a “good” performance of a folk dance will be evident in physical expression that depends on the relationship of each dancer within the larger dance structure, and the culminating feeling of the whole group working in concert. So, while assessment applies to individual students, we must keep in mind that folk dancing is a group act that is primarily more than the sum of its parts. If each dancer contributes genuinely, the result will be a spirited, music-kinesthetic experience with an artful group dynamic.

The measurement of complex behaviors, such as those involved with folk dancing, requires the use of tools that assess students’ demonstration of skill acquisition in authentic, real-time scenarios (Abeles, 1973; Bonbright & McGreevy-Nichols, 1999; Hanna, 2008). Designating observable skills helps align instruction and assessment to meet curricular goals (Cope, 1996; Miller et al., 2013). In a broad sense, the necessary and measureable skills for successful student folk dancing will include various motor skills, response to visual and aural cues, and an awareness of others. Assessment tools designed to measure such behaviors typically take the form of checklists, rating scales, or rubrics that identify and describe observable student knowledge and skill acquisition.

Assessment in Dance Education Applicable to Folk Dancing

Dance education standards are part of the National Core Arts Standards (NCAS) of 2014. Like other arts educators, dance educators are concerned with students’ ability to create, perform, respond, and connect—referred to as, dance literacy. While specific dance types are not named in the dance standards strands of the NCAS, dance education anchor standard five specifies observable skills that educators may find applicable to folk dance assessment. Those include dancers’ ability to: replicate movement patterns in a dance sequence, adjust movements to coordinate with a partner or other dancers, and respond to aural and visual stimuli cues (National Dance Education Organization, 2014).

Folk Dance Assessment in Physical Education

While folk dancing occupies a position in many music education programs, it has a more extensive history as a component of physical education curricula (McCarthy, 1996). In a thesis related to this topic, Cholod (1994) identified four measurable elements of folk dancing: individual dance steps; awareness of the use of space; awareness of time, energy, and flow; and relationships with others. Cholod expounded that in physical education, folk dance is used to meet objectives within psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains.

Physical education researchers have developed assessment tools specific to the skills of folk dancing. For example, researchers Slettum, Fox, Looney, and Jay (2001) in the department of physical education at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb developed the Folk-Dance Performance Checklist for Children. The listed skills and movement criteria from this checklist are an appropriate guide for identifying the components of dancers’ specific, observable movements. In fact, certain movement criteria on the checklist are applicable to a variety of folk dances. For example, “holds partner’s hands at all times”; “movement matches the beat of the music”; “performs the dance sequence in order”; “performs movements with a light, buoyant quality”; “interacts with partner courteously” (Slettum et al., 2001, p. 40). While this does not represent an exhaustive list of possible measurable criteria, it does highlight valuable assessment points for evaluating folk dancing quality.

It is noteworthy that in the case of the study by Slettum et al. (2001), although dancers performed with a partner, the evaluators scored them separately—producing a distinct score for each individual. Also, an important condition of the study was that the evaluators rated dancers only when they performed in the head couple position. That specification for the exact moment of assessment was critical for fostering reliability among evaluators’ ratings, but may also be a helpful parameter for any folk dance assessment scenario.

Quality Standards in Recreational Folk Dancing

Additional information pertinent to developing a folk dancing assessment tool is found in the ongoing, recreational folk dance community. For example, the tradition of English and North American-rooted folk dancing, is actively represented in all 50 American states (Seelig, 2015). Representative dances in this tradition include contra, square, and English country dance, among other, similar folk dance types (CDSS, 2015). Performance standards and customs within this tradition are similar to those identified by dance and physical educators. These include a courteous demeanor, “giving weight” to support one’s partner, responding to visual and aural cues (other dancers; music; a dance caller), fluidity between dance steps, consistent eye contact, and general contribution to the group dynamic (Amidon, 2003; Baumgartner & Hagen, 2015; CDSS, 2015).

A Composite Rubric to Assess Folk Dancing Quality

The aforementioned skill criteria in dance and physical education, and the recreational folk dance community, provide valuable insights for developing appropriate assessment tools to rate student folk dancing. Such assessment tools need to contain specific movement and dance protocol standards, be applicable to music educators’ instructional objectives, and yet be general enough to apply to multiple selections and subgenres within the folk dance repertory. Therefore, I have created the following Folk Dancing Proficiency Rubric for use by teachers in music education, or any setting that incorporates folk dancing (see Figure 2). The movement skills and qualities valued among the aforementioned educators and folk dance enthusiasts are reflected in the descriptors listed on the rubric.

Figure 2.

Folk dancing proficiency rubric.

The contents of the rubric are intended to be general enough to make it adaptable for rating dancer performances of many folk dance genres of varying cultures. Additionally, the rubric is applicable to dancers of any age provided that the specific dance being performed is age appropriate for the dancers who are being evaluated.

Based on the work of Slettum et al. (2001), I suggest that the Folk Dancing Proficiency Rubric should be used to rate individual dancers while they perform in the head couple position. I believe that standardizing the moment of assessment for evaluators will increase the consistency of obtained results. Educators may also find that their assessments will benefit from assessing dancers twice during a dance; once as the head couple, and again at a different position in the dance set. The two points of assessment should be generalized into a single score and marked accordingly on the rubric. Although individual dancer scores result from using this assessment tool, the overall group aesthetic is also at stake. It is possible that there are certain ineffable qualities to successful folk dancing that are beyond the scope of this rubric. Presumably, however, a group of dancers that contains a majority of high-scoring individuals will show evidence of an appropriately skillful and effervescent group aesthetic. Conversely, a group of consistently low-scoring individuals may indicate a need for the teacher to revisit applicable areas of instruction in order to nurture the desired artistic and educational goals.

It is common practice for educators to include movement activities such as folk dancing in their music lessons; however, most music teachers focus on music rather than movement standards (Ferguson, 2005). Most music educators probably do not consider themselves to be authorities in dance education. After all, preservice music teacher training does not necessarily include experience with dance instruction or the evaluation of students’ dance movements. Music educators, however, can feel comfortable with teaching and evaluating student folk dancing if they have the proper tools. The Folk Dancing Proficiency Rubric provides a necessary tool to identify and evaluate students’ musical movements as applied to folk dancing in any classroom.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Jeffrey Rhone holds a master of music education (early childhood emphasis), and a Kodály teaching certificate from The Hartt School, University of Hartford. His independent research includes field and archival collecting at Warren Wilson College, Asheville, NC, and The Archive of Folk Life Studies in Washington, D.C. Mr. Rhone taught instrumental music in Cleveland, OH for five years, and grade K–5 vocal music for over 15 years in North Haven, CT public schools. Currently, Mr. Rhone teaches courses in Folksong Research in the Kodály certification program at The Hartt School where he is enrolled as a doctoral student.

References

Abeles

(1973). A facet-factorial approach to the construction of rating scales to measure complex behaviors. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 145–151. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00792.x

Amidon

(Director). (2003). Chimes of Dunkirk: Teaching dance to children [DVD]. Brattleboro, VT: New England Dancing Masters.

Amidon

Brass

M. C.

Davis

(Eds.). (1991). Chimes of Dunkirk: Great dances for children. Brattleboro, VT: New England Dancing Masters.

Baumgartner

Hagen

(2015). How to be a great dancer: Tips on technique. Retrieved from www.contradance.org/html/new_dancer_info.php

Bonbright

J. M.

McGreevy-Nichols

(1999). NAEP and dance: On contextual data, process, and problems in dance assessments, and recommendations for the field. Arts Education Policy Review, 100(6), 27–32. doi:10.1080/10632919909605995

Chalfa Ruyter

N. L

. (1995). Some musings on folk dance. Dance Chronicle, 18, 269–279. doi:10.1080/01472529508569203

Cholod

K. L.

(1994). Children’s causal attributions for performance in creative dance and folk dance (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. MM05371)

Cope

C. O.

(1996). Steps toward effective assessment. Music Educators Journal, 83(1), 39–42. doi:10.2307/3398993

Country Dance & Song Society. (2015). Continuing the traditions, linking those who love them. Retrieved from www.cdss.org/

10.

Davis

Amidon

M. A.

Brass

M. C.

(Eds.). (2007). Sashay the donut: Even more dances for just about anyone. Brattleboro, VT: New England Dancing Masters.

11.

Durlacher

(1945). The play party book: Singing games for children. New York, NY: Devin-Adair.

12.

Ferguson

(2005). The role of movement in elementary music education: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 23–34.

13.

Gallagher

P. P.

(1979). Teachers’ attitudes toward folk dance in the elementary curriculum (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 43403)

14.

Hagood

T. K.

(2001). Moving in harmony with the body: The teaching legacy of Margaret H’Doubler. Dance Research Journal, 32(2), 32–51. doi:10.2307/1477980

15.

Hanna

J. L.

(2008). A nonverbal language for imagining and learning: Dance education in the K–12 curriculum. Educational Researcher, 37, 491–506. doi:10.3102/0013189X08326032

16.

Jaques-Dalcroze

(1915). The eurhythmics of Jaques-Dalcroze. Boston, MA: Small Maynard.

17.

Kennedy

(1953). The educational element in folk music and dance. Journal of the International Folk Music Council, 5, 48–50. doi:10.2307/836150

18.

Lewis

(1998). Movement and music education: An historian’s perspective. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 6, 113–123. Retrieved from www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40327123

19.

Longden

Derfler

(Directors). (2006). Dances of the 7 continents for kids & teachers [DVD]. Evanston, IL: Folk Style.

20.

Manifold

L. H.

(2008). Applying Jaques-Dalcroze’s method to teaching musical instruments and its effect on the learning process. Retrieved from http://manifoldmelodies.com/docs/Manifold_Dalcroze_voice.pdf

21.

McCarthy

(1996). Dance in the music curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 82(6), 17–21. doi:10.2307/3398946

22.

Miller

M. D.

Linn

R. L.

Gronlund

N. E.

(2013). Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.

23.

National Dance Education Organization. (2014). The standards for learning and teaching dance in the arts: Ages 5–18. Retrieved from www.ndeo.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=893257&module_id=55412

24.

Overholser

L. M.

(2010). Staging the folk: Processes and considerations in the staging of folk dance forms (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3409107)

25.

Panebianco-Warrens

(2014). Exploring the dimensions of flow and the role of music in professional ballet dancers. Muziki: Journal of Music Research in Africa, 11(2), 58–78.

26.

Riley

M. C.

(1995). English country dances for children. Delphi, IN: Riverside.

27.

Saitlin

N. M.

Oberman

Boyer

Hausman

Wilson

(1989). Education for the Nineties: The arts in the curriculum. Illinois State Board of Education.

28.

Seelig

(2015). Contra dance/contradance in the United States, Canada, and the world, sites and pages. Retrieved from www.contradancelinks.com/

29.

Slettum

B. S.

Fox

Looney

M. A.

Jay

D. M.

(2001). Validity and reliability of a folk-dance performance checklist for children. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5(1), 35–55. doi:10.1207/S15327841MPEE0501_3

30.

Turino

(2008). Music as social life: The politics of participation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Weikart

P. S.

(2003). Teaching movement & dance: A sequential approach to rhythmic movement. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press.