Two contrasting methods of instruction have emerged in education: the traditional banking method and the more dynamic approach of active listening. These pedagogical models profoundly affect student engagement and learning outcomes, particularly in dance education, where movement, creativity, and self-expression are central. While the banking method often leads to passive learning and memorization of choreography, active listening fosters a deeper connection between teacher and student, enhancing creativity, retention, and critical thinking through embodied learning.
The Banking Method
The banking method, as criticized by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, refers to a traditional mode of education where the teacher "deposits" knowledge into passive students. This approach treats students as empty vessels to be filled with information rather than active participants in their learning (Freire, 1970). In dance education, this can manifest as rigid instruction where the teacher dictates movement sequences, leaving little room for student input or creativity.
In a dance setting, the banking method limits opportunities for students to engage in reflective or critical thinking about the material they are learning. Treating students as passive recipients reduces their possibility of exploring their own movement language and finding personal meaning in their physical expression. According to Bonbright (2011), this traditional style of instruction is ineffective in fostering meaningful engagement with dance as an art form because it disregards the student’s active role in creating and interpreting movement.
Active Listening
In contrast, active listening in dance education shifts the focus from teacher-centered instruction to a more collaborative, student-centered learning environment. Active listening involves paying close attention to students’ verbal and nonverbal responses and adapting teaching strategies to meet their needs. This method encourages students to express their thoughts about movement, choreography, and the emotions behind the dance, leading to deeper engagement. When applied in dance education, active listening creates a dialogical exchange between teachers and students, allowing the teacher to respond more effectively to each dancer's unique needs and creative impulses. This approach aligns with Gilbert’s (2005) discussion on how dance teachers can facilitate student learning by encouraging reflective practice and fostering an environment where students are comfortable sharing their ideas. In doing so, teachers help students become active participants in the learning process, where both creativity and technical skill development are supported.
The Benefits of Active Listening in Dance Education
The benefits of active listening in dance education align with modern pedagogical theories that emphasize student-centered learning as demonstrated when teachers listen actively, students are more engaged, motivated, and willing to take creative risks, leading to higher levels of creativity and critical thinking (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Contu & Willmott, 2003; Gilbert, 2005). Active listening also allows teachers to tailor instruction to support each dancer's individual growth. By observing and engaging with students’ body language and movement choices, educators can create more inclusive and personalized learning experiences, crucial in dance, where physical abilities, emotional states, and individual experiences vary widely (Overby, 1986). In contrast, the banking method in dance education can limit students' ability to develop their artistic voices (Bonbright, 2011). Without opportunities to engage in dialogue or contribute creatively, dancers may struggle to connect emotionally with the material or see the relevance of their training beyond the studio. By promoting dialogue and reflection, active listening helps students find personal meaning in dance, leading to greater retention, both of technique and the emotional depth required for expressive performance.
References
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
Bonbright, J. (2011). NDEO Online Professional Development: Dance Education. Journal of Dance Education, 11(1), 36–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2011.547795
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183 ($17. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049
Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167
Gilbert, A. G. (2005). Dance Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(5), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2005.10608250
Overby, L. Y. (1986). A Comparison Of Novice And Experienced Dancers’ Imagery Ability With Respect To Their Performance On Two Body Awareness Tasks. Proquest Dissertations Publishing.
Comentários