Abstract
This paper reviews, analyzes, and reflects upon two important reports released in 2013, both discussing research evidence for the value of dance education or arts education more generally, among school-aged students. One report was created by a large dance education advocacy and support group in the USA, the National Dance Education Organization; the other came from the European-based Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, affiliated with the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Studying the two reports next to each other brings into focus important issues facing the field, especially distinctions between advocacy and research, and between values and facts, along with the impact of such distinctions on research questions and methodologies selected to pursue them. The author examines and challenges not only ideas in the reports, but also her own professional choices during a long career as dance educator and researcher.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the USA, K-12 refers to kindergarten through high school, or 5–18-year olds.
- 2.
The April 2014 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter, published by the US Center for Science in the Public Interest, presents an easy to understand description of the complexity of such research.
References
Bonbright, J., & Faber, R. (Eds.). (2004). Research priorities for dance education: A report to the nation. Bethesda: National Dance Education Organization.
Bonbright, J., Bradley, K., & Dooling, S. (2013). Evidence: A report on the impact of dance in the K-12 setting. Silver Spring: National Dance Education Organization. Retrieved 9 Apr 2015, from http://www.ndeo.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=893257&module_id=153248
Buechner, F. (2007). Listen to your life. In B. Abernethy & W. Bole (Eds.), The life of meaning (pp. 415–419). New York: Seven Stories Press.
Carroll, R. T. (2006). Mozart effect. Retrieved 27 Sept 2013, from http://skepdic.com/mozart.html
CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). (2007). Integrity in science watch week of 01/ 08/2007. Retrieved 27 Sept 2013, from http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200701082.html
Gee, C. B. (2007). Valuing the arts on their own terms? [Ceci n’est pas une pipe]. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(3), 3–12.
Mehr, S. A., Schachner, A., Katz, R. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Two randomized trials provide no consistent evidence for nonmusical cognitive benefits of brief preschool musice. PLoS One. Retrieved 22 Apr 2014, from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082007
Stinson, S. W. (1975). Creative movement in the public school: Project analysis. Dance Research Journal, 7(2), 44–50.
Winner, E. T., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake? Overview. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 27 Sept 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/ART%20FOR%20ART%E2%80%99S%20SAKE%20OVERVIEW_EN_R3.pdf. The complete version of the report can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264180789-en
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stinson, S.W. (2016). Searching for Evidence: Continuing Issues in Dance Education Research (2015). In: Embodied Curriculum Theory and Research in Arts Education. Landscapes: the Arts, Aesthetics, and Education, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20786-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20786-5_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20785-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20786-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)