International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jedures

Teaching as dance: A case-study for teacher practice analysis

Serafina Pastore a,*, Monica Pentassuglia b

a University of Bari, Italy Department of Education, Psychology, Communication, Via Crisanzio 1, 70121 Bari, Italyb University of Verona, Italy Department of Philosophy, Pedagogy, and Psychology, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 17, 37129 Verona, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 7 February 2014

Received in revised form 25 July 2014

Accepted 16 December 2014

Available online

Keywords:

Teaching

Performance

Body

Dance

Ethnographic research

A B S T R A C T

Identify and describe the characteristics of the teacher’s professional practice is not easy.

Recent researches on work and the influence of the concept of practice have contributed to

the budding of studies aimed at explaining and clarifying aspects of teachers’ work.

Starting from the assumption that work is a performance, the article illustrates a

conceptual way of analysing teaching practice and reports results of a single case-study.

Despite the research limitations, the present paper draws attention to a particular

category of analysis, the dance, and tries to read teaching as a practical and situated

activity. Several suggestions are discussed for further improvements in teaching research.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The role and the function of the body, like its recognition, both in collective imagery and in the costumes and values, hadsince long ‘‘made’’ the passage to a somatic society (Turner, 1996; Turner & Rojek, 2001). The body has always represented anessential aspect in the human society:

– d

ht

08

uring the Middle Ages it was an instrument to recharge the sense of dichotomous representation between body (tension,corruption, disorder) and spirit (Galimberti, 2003);

– in

Renaissance, there were different visions; a disowned and omitted body on one hand, and an idealized, exalted,contemplated body, on the other hand;

– in

the Enlightenment period the dualism mind-body was overcome through the idea of ‘‘body subject’’; – s ince XIX century until now, there is the acknowledgement to the close connection between body experience and identity.

Anthropology, sociology, psychology, art research, have driven studies on body language understood as an index of socialand gender differentiation (Gamelli, 2007; O’Loughlin, 1998). The gestures and movements become symbolic sources thatgive meaning to the experience. ‘‘Within a cultural perspective, the body is often described as a cultural representation ofsocial organization and power relations’’ (Turner, 2006).

The redemption of the body in its modern sense has been reached in phenomenological, sociological, anthropologicalstudies. In this perspective the body assumed an essential role for social change (Mauss, 1979). Our own way of being is built

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0805714546.

E-mail addresses: serafina.pastore@uniba.it (S. Pastore), monica.pentassuglia@univr.it (M. Pentassuglia).

tp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.12.001

83-0355/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 17

in: we learn practices and behaviours that are within our body. This assumption has been taken up by P. Bourdieu todistinguish between hexis (a person’s behaviour, made up of gestures, gait and posture) and habitus (rules through to expressattitudes and the usual way of doing things). This distinction has inspired research in an ethnographic perspective on therelationship between the body and society (Bourdieu, 1977). The body thus becomes essential to understand social change:for example the strong impulse that since the 1930s, phenomenology has exercised focusing not only on its possible theories,but also practices relating to it and the ideology that inspired them (Motterle, 2009).

Practical knowledge is embodied and embedded. It is a sensitive and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958), produced andmediated by the body (Fenwick, 2003). It represents a requisite for a professional vision and a guarantee for an effective jobperformance. Similar considerations have marked a real turning in studies of society, knowledge and meaning, and haveprofoundly modified analytical-interpretative categories (the theatre, the performance, the choreography).

The relationship between body and mind and body and action can be also matched in psychological and educationalresearches. Several studies have showed how important are action and culture in human practices (Eraut, 2000): therecognition of cognitive activities within different contexts and the role of practical think in action (Scribner, 1984) haveinspired several researches realized in a cognitive and sociocultural perspective.

In the light of socially situated nature of knowing (Engestrom, 1999; Hutchins, 1995; Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991;Suchman, 1987) ‘‘the activities individuals engage in and though which their cognition is shaped, are held to have historicaland cultural geneses (Cole, 1998; Rogoff, 1990; Scribner, 1984)’’ (Billett, 2003: 4). Everyday practices and the activities ofpersons acting cannot be studied in isolation ‘‘from socially material world of activity’’ (Lave, 1996: 5).

According to Hutchins (1995), the structure of cognition is widely distributed across the environment both social andphysical.

In her ethnomethodological and symbolic interactionism approach, Suchman further uncovers the ways that humansdepend upon their physical and social environment to create a reliable cognitive system.

Those studies have shifted research interests in knowledge epistemology from objects to modalities of knowledgeconsidered now as relational practices and not yet as ‘‘ideal world, locked into people mind’’ (Schon, 1983; Wenger, 1998).

Similarly this assumption can be found also in Engestrom neovygotskian studies in workplace. Analysing expertise,Engestrom points out how a single performance cannot be considered as representative of a expert competency. To this aimis proper to study specific workplace contexts within persons act, use profession instruments and interact with colleagues.

In this perspective Eraut (2000) outlines how:

– c

ommunity are belongs to represents the system within a person acts. Relational system and social roles are importantbecause they structure professional practices;

– m

ediation process between a subject and an object makes use of rules and conventions (implicit and/or explicit); – th e division of labour is relevant inside the organization (work setting, status and power system).

Drawing on a review of several researches on practical learning, performance and workplace, anthropological studies(Henze, 1992), studies on practical thinking (Scribner, 1984) distributed cognition (Salomon, 1995) and situated learning,feature as follows:

– le

arning happens both in classroom and outside classroom boundaries; – in formal and incidental learning are important in the professional development; – p rofessional learning matched as a learning community; – k nowledge, activities, social relationship, physical context and body are interwoven.

Body and action categories become critical aspects in the learning processes: the main problem is now to investigateknowledge epistemologies and forms of knowledge (Scribner, 1985).

Four steps that have marked our reflection:

– a

review of the studies that thematize the work through the body; – a n overview of models for dance analysis with a focus on methods of coding of movement (Labanotation); – a presentation of results of a first case study aimed to identify and describe teachers’ professional practice; – th e identification of future research path.

2. The body at work: the performance

Nowadays, technological, social, and scientific innovations have significantly changed the concept of work and modifiedhow we think and live it. More specifically, the sociology of work abandoning traditional interpretative categories has triedto find new research itineraries marked out by the strength influence of symbolic interactionism and by ethnomethodology.The pervasive diffusion of the concept of practice (Schatzi, Knorr-Cetina, & von Savigny, 2001; Shilling, 2003) has changedthe concept of work that is intended now as a context in which specific abilities and competencies are created, transmittedand preserved.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3018

In the workplace studies perspective work is intended as a set of learning modalities, as a process of situated knowledgeemerged through the dynamic workers’ interactions. Working means knowing and not only using some knowledge. Indeed,knowledge is not a response in the head of the humans but is ‘‘hooked into’’, and linked to the material world. Practicalknowledge involves humans committed in the work in a way that exclude distinctions and dichotomies among body andmind, theory and action. This knowledge is distributed in objects and facts, and in the work context. It has a pragmaticapproach and specific temporality. In the workplace the body performs an important role: it is through the senses, inparticular, that knowledge is preserved and transmitted. The body learns at work. At the same time, it is a resource forlearning: we learn to perceive the phenomena and identify standards of knowledge considered for that specific workenvironment.

Several studies have been realized in this regard: from the investigations of Sudnow (1978) on how to learn to play thepiano and the pianists’ ability to distinguish between the movement of the right hand and the left hand to the research onimprovisation of jazz musicians and their ‘‘knowledge of hands’’ (Sparti, 2005); from the studies on the role of hearing incontrol rooms (Gherardi & Nicolini, 2001) to the classical investigations of G.H. Mead who showed that touch andmanipulation of objects not only allow knowledge, but facilitate its internalization (Mead, 1934) and, last but not least, theresearches of Goodwin (1994) on the perception of colours. In this framework, the body adapts and learns through practice; apractice that takes the form of a daily activity strongly rooted in the context and in the time in which people act (Giddens,1991).

The performance ranks as a concept directly influenced by the competence. It refers to an ability to act (Dirksmeier &Helbrecht, 2008) that recalls making sense, interpreting situations to deal with, being able to design and implement actionsrelevant to the context.

In this sense, it cannot be separated from body. As an immediately practical act, performance develops in space and timeand is presented as a fluid and dynamic process always ready and responsive to stimuli and feedback. Dirksmeier andHelbrecht (2008) put the performance on a continuum whose poles are art (intended as a dramaturgy planned) and daily life(as a practice for adaptation and improvisation).

The character of the dramaturgy gives at the act a logical sense that is declined as a history planned and organized in spaceand time. However, daily life draws attention on routines that often reveal the unawareness of tacit knowledge and showsthe improvised character of the events within different contexts. At the halfway between art and everyday life, theperformance (Beckett & Morris, 2001) brings on attention on movements synchronization. Performance makes account onwork done by the body and highlights improvised features of processes (Bruni & Gherardi, 2007).

The effectiveness of a performance is conditioned by communication and by interaction between performer andaudience. This is a concession of responsibility for the success of the performance itself: the feedback received by observers(Goffman, 1969) allows the performer to maintain control situation. The performance is not something abstract or isolated;falls within, rather, in every area of the life (Dirksmeier & Helbrecht, 2008). The concept of practice allows interpreting theperformance as the experienced scenarios (Butler, 2008).

Dirksmeier and Helbrecht in their Non-Representational Theory aim to study the performance as a product staged by thebody. Actions and events are defined in their immanence time. As a result, this theory focuses on how the subject knows andlearns in an intuitive way. In refusing a knowledge extracted post hoc from reality, Dirksmeier and Helbrecht analyzeeveryday practices as embodiment and embedding a culture and seek to strengthen the creativity of performative methods.

The attention paid on body and on practical knowledge allows using the concepts of performance and choreography. Inthis context, the dance staged becomes a pertinent category of analysis to gather information and define interpretation pathsfor work. However, dance is not limited at the expression of emotions and feelings. We refer to the cultural and ideologicaldimension of performance itself. Moreover, the social character allows distinguish between different choreographic stylesand between the success or not of a good performance.

The work is then understood as the result of processes of mediation, interaction, and social negotiation.

3. Body and dance: path of analysis

The dance begins with the body, with the awareness that body becomes a means of contact and communication withothers: not surprisingly, the dance has always existed, in any culture and in any human society, fulfilling artistic, social,religious functions (e.g., cosmogony of the great myths; gender rituals). The observation of a single performance shifts thefocus on how the social world uses the bodies and gives them a form. Post-modern studies have interpreted the dance as text(choreographies): ‘‘choreography can stipulate both the kinds of actions performed and their sequence or progression’’(Foster, 2011: 2). Instead, has an immediateness that cannot be found in discourses and that cannot be analyzed in adisembodied way. The dance is experience of the body that becomes mean, tool, material through which make explicitpractices, gestures, movements, ability and knowledge (Adshead-Lansdale, 1999; Wainwright & Turner, 2003, 2004).

Annulling the separation mind-body typical of the western culture, the dance has represented an object of great interestduring the last century. Janesick (1994, 2000) uses categories of dance and choreography for qualitative research. Fromminuet to improvisation, qualitative research and its steps take shape and consistency through the work of the researcher/choreographer who directs the entire process. Ethnography and dance-research have set particular attention to the body, tothe movement, to the analysis of the dance as bodily experience, aesthetic object, social and, cultural process. Anunderstanding desire sublimated in several attempts, to establish a rigorous and universal system of coding and notation of

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 19

body movements. The aim to write the movement of dance has promoted a new research interest: preserve choreographicwriting by the uniqueness of moment, the arbitrariness of the oral tradition and the memory of the dancers.

The best known and most popular is the Kinetography Laban, better known as Labanotation. Laban (1999, 1975) tried todevelop a philosophy of dance with the aim not only to elevate the discipline to a higher artistic dignity, but also to give it anessential role in comprehension that individuals may develop on their own existence. We talk, in this sense, the choreosophy

(knowledge of the movement) and its branches:

– c

horeography (study and writing of the movement); – c horeology (study of grammar and syntax of the language movement); – c horeutics (practical study of the forms of the movement); – e ukinetics (theory of dynamics and rhythm) (Oliva, 2005).

Different attempts have been made to codify body movements. In the 1670s, Louis XIV ask to his Dancing Master P.Beauchamp ‘‘to discover the means of making the art of dance comprehensible on paper’’ (Foster, 2011: 18). Since thenseveral chorepgrapher tried to create a coding system to translate movements in symbols on paper (e.g. Feuillett’s systemduring 1700; Arbeau’s narrative system; Tournefort’s taxonomy).

In despite of numerous attempts, the most widely used coding system for ‘‘body language’’ are three.The first one is the Kinetography Laban. Invented by Rudolf Laban about 1928 in Germany, Labanotation uses a functional-

analytic approach to the study of movement through a physical–mathematical perspective. The encoding uses, in fact, theparameters of weight, space, flow and energy. ‘‘As in a musical score, the staff is divided into tempo and the number of beatsper measure. One or more staves can be arranged into a Score, each staff representing the motion of an individual dancer’’(Wilke, Calvert, Ryman, & Fox, 2005: 202) (Fig. 1). A floorplan can be also used to show the path of the body in the stage.

In early 1950s Rudolph and Joan Benesh developed in England the Benesh Notation. This system, as well as Labanotation,is written like a music score. Symbols are written within five horizontal lines; the stave is read from left to right and from thetop to the bottom of the page. All information of the body coincides with distinctive features of the body (Fig. 2).

Benesh Notation is strictly related to ballet figures and concepts. Stage plans may be used in order to give an overview ofthe movements in the space.

Eshkol–Wachman notation, at last, is a coding system created by Noa Eshkol (choreographer) and Abraham Wachman(architect) in Tel-Aviv University, during the 1950s. The system operates upon the base of ‘‘spherical system of reference’’.The space around the body and such part of the body, is conceived of a sphere. Several graphical symbols and numbers are setup to write every visually movement of the human body. For this reason Wshkol–Wachman system has been used by animalbehaviourists and ethologists. This notation is also largely used by experts for early diagnosis of certain disorder (e.g. autism,Asperger’s syndrome).

Three different coding system of body language. After this description we can now explore some differences among thesesystem to justify our research choice.

Both Labanotation and Benesh Notation systems are developed firstly to record and preserve ballet choreography. Weconsider, however, Benesh Notation inappropriate for our analysis. Its movements transcription is grounded on theprinciples of ballet: so there are no symbols applicable to all movements of the body.

Eshkol–Wachman system, instead, differs from Labanotation for the ‘‘language’’ of notation itself. The accuracy andprecision of Eshkol–Wachman system allows animal behaviourists and ethologists to use only behavioural description of themovements without any ‘‘qualitative’’ verbal expression. ‘‘In Labanotation, added flexibility of description is achieved withbodily based concepts such as the ‘contraction’, ‘folding’, and ‘extension’ of limbs. Various ways of describing relationships(between body parts, persons, or persons and objects) are also possible’’ (Farnell, 1984: 87). In Labanotation, therefore,descriptions of body movements are closely related to the concepts and descriptions of the agents.

For these reasons we have decided to use Labanotation for our teachers’ practice analysis. This system, indeed, allow us torecord the ‘‘quality’’ of teacher’s movement that would not be easily understood through an analysis purely behaviourist. ForLaban the essential characters of the personality are comprehensible through the observation of the movements. Everyphase of the movement reveals therefore something.

The body, designed as a tool for the art of movement, is different from all those tools that are an extension of the bodyitself (as, for example, in painting or sculpture).

It is on the basis of this framework that we have thought to identify and describe the peculiar characteristics of teaching.Analyze teaching practice in terms of performance tantamount to analyze the staging of an improvised choreography.

Improvisation is understood as an active response that the performer implements with not only the reactions of others, butalso with the space around. It is a unique choreography, not repeatable, that is born from the awareness of a responsive bodyable to react and to answer in autonomous and pertinent way to the stimuli coming outside. A reactivity to the externalstimuli implies awareness of own movements and impulses and, therefore, of its own body. It is here that becomes evidentthe substantial difference among possess a body and be a body. This is a nodal point not only of the reflections oncontemporary dance, but above all those of improvisation techniques, such as Contact Improvisation (a form of danceconceived by S. Paxton in order to explore new possibilities of movement outside of encoded movement patterns) aimedexplore and develop a greater awareness of body.

[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]

Fig. 1. Labanotation.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3020

4. Research protocol for teaching as dance: a first attempt

Starting from the assumption of work as lived and embodied practice, as stated above, we have tried to analyze teachingactivities through dance. The path of inquiry, conducted in a primary school of Bari district (in the South of Italy) was aimedto study, in an ethnographic perspective, the teaching practices as a choreography. To such aim three different tools have[(Fig._2)TD$FIG]

Fig. 2. Benesh notation.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 21

been used: non-participant observation with pen and paper descriptions, video recordings and Labanotation. The inquiry hasinterested three teachers with different professional experience (junior, expert, senior). They have been observed and filmedduring the lessons.

For the observations, we have used, pen and paper descriptions and two observation grids of teaching actions (Table 1)where we have marked the presence of the actions-step of a typical lesson.

The second grid was a grid of movements (Table 2) with 12 different categories: seven for the bust, four for the head, andone for the likely absence of the teacher. For this grid, the presence of every category has been marked according to afrequency of 10 s to interval for a total of 60 intervals. For every interval the presence has been marked both of a categoryregarding the bust, and the head.

The observation sessions have been so structured: every single lesson of 60 min has been divided in two sessions of 20 minfor descriptions paper and pen and compilation of the grids. After this there were two sessions of 10 min of videotaping. Thematerial taped and collected data have been used for the Labanotation that has allowed to synthesize all the observations and tointerpret teachers’ movements as a dance. Labanotation has allowed us to clear teacher’s movement analysis from the contextvariables which could have influence the interpretation (for example the perception of the observer, his/her emotions). Weconsidered, therefore, the essential components of the Labanotation (LabanWriter version 4.4):

– th

e body (what?); – th e space (where?); – th e time (when?); – th e performance in the space (how?).

The staff, that is the Labanotation output, is a support where to place the symbolism of teachers’ movement (Fig. 3). Thecentral axis divides the body into two parts, left and right. In parallel to the central axis there are other two sidebars, right andleft, which allow locating the different parts of the body. The writing develops in a bottom-up way. In base to the position ofthe symbol inside the columns it changes the part of the body of reference. The basic symbol is the rectangle. Other symbolsrefer to different directions. These symbols can be of three types: black (low level), white with a point to the centre (middlelevel) and transversal lines (tall level). The length of the symbol indicates the duration of the movement. Each of thesesymbols base contains, therefore, four information:

– th

e time (length of the symbol); – th e direction (form of the symbol); – th e level (colour of the symbol); – th e part of the body in movement (position in comparison to the central axle).

The time is divided into intervals marked on the central axis (each interval is equivalent to an account/beat).The weight of the body, indicated along the central axis of the staff, identifies several options:

– in

variance (when teacher don’t change the weight); – c hange (when teacher change the level of his/her weight); – tr ansfer (when teacher transfer the weight from one leg to other); – a bsence (e.g. jump); – r otation (rotates on him/herself).

The movement description may be further refined through the use of additional of several symbols which identifydifferent characteristics.

Table 1

Observation grid of teaching actions.

Teacher____________________ Dates

Contextualization

Assessment of previous knowledge

Learning goals introduction

Preparation for learning

Interaction with past teaching processes

Explanation of main topics

Call for feedbacks

Learning organizers management

Summary

Class discussion

Fix learning goals – assessment of learning achievement

Conclusions

Table 2

Observation grid of teacher’s movements.

Day Teacher

Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Motionless (I)

Gesticulation while sitting (GS)

Gesticulation while standing (GP)

Gesticulation while walking (GC)

Going up to pupils (A)

Using teaching tools (US)

Space management (OS)

Offstage (P/A)

Movement of the head while

standing (MC/P)

Movement of the head while

sitting (MC/S)

Movement of the head while

walking (MC/C)

Immobility of the head (IC)

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3022

5. Choreutical analysis of teaching practice

In the light of the data collected, we will try now to interpret the teachers’ practices observed.The first teacher is MN; she is a junior teacher. We are in a first grade class. The space is not a lot. The small desks are

prepared to couple and organized in three lines. The pupils can pass only one to the time. Near the teacher’s desk, there is ablackboard, and on the right a locker for teaching material. There is a lot of light and so many colours in this classroom for thevarious papers and posters on the walls.

MN is on the threshold of the door and welcomes pupils when they arrive in class. Then she moves and she sits behind herdesk. Busy preparing her material, she’s greeting latecomers. Rarely, she raises her head; she seems absorbed in her thoughts.The pupils are still sitting down when, almost in distracted way, she moves the objects set on her desk: the pen-holder, thenotebook, the metronome, the bunny of pasta of salt. It is like she is creating a line, almost a barrier on the edge of the desk.MN, perhaps because she still young professionally, defines or rather, creates a boundary between herself and her pupils.

Finished this operation (I session of observation), she lifts her head and the bust as if she were ready to start. Her teachingactions are focused on the dimension of warm-up (it is the first hour of the day): she is preparing her pupils for learn andcontextualizes contents of the lesson recalling what has been done the day before (Table 3). During the lesson (II observationsession) MN is not stationary: she moves a lot and tries to have a contact with her pupils. The observation of her movementsunderlines, in fact, her tendency to reach pupils to help them. The MN’s lesson is characterized by:

[(Fig._3)TD$FIG]

Fig. 3. Standard staff.

Table 3

Teaching actions of the teacher MN.

Teacher____________________ Day 1

Contextualization 1

Assessment of previous knowledge

Learning goals introduction

Preparation for learning 1

Interaction with past teaching processes

Explanation of main topics 1

Call for feedbacks 1

Learning organizers management 1

Summary

Class discussion

Fix learning goals–assessment of learning achievement 1

Conclusions

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 23

– th

[(Fig._4)TD$FIG]

e space management (OS);

– th e categories of the going up to pupils (A); – th e movement of the head while she is standing (MC/P) (Fig. 4).

The Laban coding of the repertoire of MN shows how her movements, almost never, occupy a time over two counts. MNalternates moments of immobility (of the body, but not of the head) and quick movements. The first staffs are related to thewarm-up of the lesson: between pirouettes and small runs, MN takes possession of the space with her presence. Thefollowing staffs show as her front often changes (because she turns and walks to the pupils). The floorplan is present: frontchanges are related to her paths followed in the classroom space. The movements of MN are always very sudden (RUN): thisis evident by the presence of directional symbols in one beat (Fig. 5). The staffs allow focus the characterizing footsteps of herpiece. Despite she is moving and often quite quickly, we can identify some specific poses. The demi-bras are frequent and theyshow a position of the arms generally used as preparation or conclusion of sequences of movements. It is a position open tothe audience where the dancer is always slightly stretched forward: MN seeks contact and comparison with the pupils; she isready to interact with them. After the rapids pirouettes that identify the numerous changes of direction, another pose that canbe identified is the tendu-derriere (typical movement of classical ballet in which both legs are stretched and a leg moves awayfrom the other – which remains on the whole weight). Poses and movements are quite slow and with a low complexity.

The second teacher observed is F. We are now in a fifth grade class: we are in the middle of the scholastic day. It strikes theorder and the ‘‘sobriety’’ of the class. The desks are disconnected one from the other and placed in front of the teacher’s desk.

Fig. 4. Movements of the teacher MN.

[(Fig._5)TD$FIG]

Fig. 5. Staffs of the teacher MN.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3024

Among the teachers observed F has a longer experience in schools. Her teaching performance is presented from thebeginning as little hectic. The lesson has already begun an hour, it proceeds rather slowly, because F is performing theassessment and verification of previous knowledge to switch to a new topic in the poetic text unit (I observing session).Contextualization, learning goals introduction, preparation for learning, interaction with past teaching processes, explanation of

main topics, as well as summary and the promotion of a collective discussion between students (Table 4).The teacher tends to concentrate on herself all pupils’ attention. This is a surprising aspect of her performance because

she can manage the classroom by simply standing behind her desk (standing up or sitting down): she only moves her head.

Table 4

Teaching actions of the teacher F.

Teacher____________________ Day 1

Contextualization

Assessment of previous knowledge 1

Learning goals introduction

Preparation for learning

Interaction with past teaching processes

Explanation of main topics

Call for feedbacks 1

Learning organizers management 1

Summary

Class discussion

Fix learning goals–assessment of learning achievement 1

Conclusions

[(Fig._6)TD$FIG]

Fig. 6. Movements of the teacher F.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 25

The only occasions of ‘‘approach’’ and contact occur when pupils move towards her (Fig. 6). Although she remains mostlysitting, F retains the control of the class: there are constant movements of the bust and of head while standing or sitting(MC/S, MC/P) and continuous hand gestures (GS, GP). Her teaching practice is, in fact, like a dance mainly static, mademostly of port de bras.

The lesson goes through discussions always guided by the teacher who absorbs all the attention on herself (II observationsession). There aren’t, in fact, spontaneous interactions among the students when the teacher’s figure ‘‘disappears’’.

This analysis shows the substantial ‘‘simplicity’’ of her lesson.

[(Fig._7)TD$FIG]

Fig. 7. Staffs of the teacher F.

Table 5

Teaching actions of the teacher ML.

Teacher____________________ Day 2

Contextualization

Assessment of previous knowledge

Learning goals introduction

Preparation for learning

Interaction with past teaching processes

Explanation of main topics

Call for feedbacks 1

Learning organizers management 1

Summary

Class discussion 1

Fix learning goals–assessment of learning achievement

Conclusions

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3026

The staffs elaborated confirm what has already emerged from the performance of F. In the first session we can see how she isstill in place, standing; occasionally she moves her arms, and when she does it, the movements are slow and soft (Fig. 7). In thelast three staffs (II observation session), however, the teacher is sitting. Her gestures are even less frequent. It is not possible toidentify the specific steps because she is always sitting behind the desk, in a closed position. She remains the focal point of thescenic stage: although she remains largely in place, the teacher F is the main actor on the scene. Her performance, therefore, iscomparable only to the variation of an etoile: in short we have a ‘‘solo’’ choreography performed by a single dancer.

The last teacher that we have analyzed is ML, a first grade teacher. The space management in the class shows a specificsituation: the teacher’s desk is not quite central and the desks are placed in a scattered manner; pupils rise continuously andmove freely. There is a constant buzz in background. From the analysis of her teaching activities (Table 5) we can see how herlesson is characterized by an interactive nature based mainly on dialogue with the students. However in her lessons we cannote the lack of:

– s

ummary; – fi xation of learning goals and the assessment of learning achievement; – c onclusions.

The lesson ends, indeed, quickly and abrupt way.The repertoire presented by ML is largely static. ML often comes to a stop. Collected data confirm a predominant feature of

her performance: the centrality of her person (Fig. 8). She moves the head while sitting very frequently. It is remarkable how[(Fig._8)TD$FIG]

Fig. 8. Movements of the teacher ML.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 27

she tries to approach her pupils. However, in all the cases pupils are to move towards her: ML is sitting, she doesn’tgesticulate so much and related categories (GS, GP, GC) appear rarely. Often she manipulates objects around her (mostlybooks and teaching materials), especially when she is standing, but not while she is walking.

In the first session the predominant categories are those relating to the movements corresponding to the times when sheis sitting: this moment corresponds to the public assessment of a learning task handled in class (ML is sitting behind thedesk).

The lesson is characterized by one critical incident: pupils are reproached because someone has written the book of achild. Especially in the second session, ML is very often standing (by the movements of the head is clear that she stands formore than 80% of the session). The proportional increase of the categories MC/P, MC/C, and OS is related to the ‘‘critical’’ eventdescribed above. The high levels of immobility and the presence of a slight percentage of the category MC/S (Movement of the

head while sitting), reflect the conclusion of the lesson that ends in a hasty delivery and with ‘‘dark’’ of the scene.Using the Laban coding we can now interpret ML teaching style. In the first five staffs presented (Fig. 9), the floorplan

shows how the teacher fills the entire scenic space: the lesson has been suspended while ML switches between desksrebuking pupils for their unruly behaviour. As the first teacher, ML, in fact, moves frequently with the classical walks veryslow. Those steps are, generally, used during the introductions of variations. The last two staffs (Fig. 10) are about the secondsession, including the conclusion of the lesson. The movements here are minimal: ML is sitting and from the symbols aboutthe front we can understand that the teacher always faces the class.

[(Fig._9)TD$FIG]

Fig. 9. Staffs of the teacher ML.

[(Fig._10)TD$FIG]

Fig. 10. Staffs of the teacher ML.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3028

6. Conclusions

The growing interest for practical knowledge, as well as the recognition of the role and significance of everydayexperience in teacher’s work, fall within the perspective of studies and researches aimed to develop theories deeply rooted inthe reality and useful to the action. The difficulties to grasp reality has led educational research to quit a provisional approachthat is away from school practice and its real problems. This has allowed to meet both an epistemological and politicalinstances: educational research finds, in this way, a solid point to anchor itself; furthermore, there is the opportunity to givevoice to teachers, recognizing them as important and leading actors.

Teaching practice is a complex research object, it is slippery, with different variables and elements to be considered. ‘‘thatcomplexity poses a major dilemma in educational research: Since educational phenomena typically are poorly understood,investigating them requires insights from multiple disciplines using multiple kinds of research designs. Further, researchersmust thoroughly explore their internal and external characteristics currently, over time, in multiple settings, and withdifferent kinds of teachers and learners. It is difficult to achieve this type of detailed and careful exploration because framingeducational problems in terms of complexity pits educational research against political realities’’ (LeCompte, 2009: 34).

Scientific literature demonstrates how few are studies aimed to help teachers to understand criticalities in their job and toimprove their practice (Ponte, 2002; Wallace, 1998). This kind of research is based on the assumption that teacher ‘‘make uptheir own minds about how to change their practices in light of their informed practical deliberations’’ (Carr & Kannis, 1986:219). This perspective reflects a view of knowledge that bridges the gap between the teacher as a knower and what is theobject of knowledge (Dewey & Bentley, 1949; Schon, 1983). There are many studies that focuses on what and how teacherscome to know and how their performance made up (both preservice and in-service teachers) (Mumby, Russell, & Martin,2001; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Several inquires have been concerned with practicalknowledge and have tried to create a ‘‘new epistemology of practice’’ (Schon, 1995). According to E. Wenger who defines‘‘practice’’ as a ‘‘process by which we can experience the world and our engagement with it as meaningful’’ (Wenger, 1998:51), the practice shift has imposed to rethink the work, the learning processes and, the production of knowledge thatemerges within work contexts (Engestrom, 1987; Schatzki et al., 2001).

The need to set up rigorous and, more ‘‘soft’’ research methods has led us to use an unusual category of analysis: thedance.

Conscious of the eclectic and syncretic nature of this operation, we point out that the dance has not been intended as anelement of the didactic transposition architecture. Rather than we have tried to use dance as a category, as a lens to identify:

– h

ow teachers learns practice through their performance; – h ow their performance is realized within classroom context; – h ow they handle problems and situations;

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–30 29

– h

ow they use teaching tools; – h ow they manage classroom space.

The use of dance and choreography as interpretative categories has allowed us to better delineate the object of researchalso giving a new meaning to the use of the body in didactic practice: this aspect has been forgotten, for several years, byteacher educational research field.

We have to consider, however, some methodological limitations.First of all it is important to specify that, having assumed an observation session of 60 min, we cannot observe the whole

performance of each teacher.Secondly, the sample (composed by only three teachers) is not representative, and results can be generalized.

Distinguishing the three teachers only on the base of length of service, we have tried observe, in an explorative way, somedifferent points to study teachers’ practices. A feedback to teachers involved in the research has not predicted because at themoment is not functional to the main research aims. We didn’t want to know how teachers live their performance and howthey feel about their body at work. This study, at only a starting point, aims to demonstrate if and how it is possible to designdifferent investigation pathways for teaching practice. However the reporting moment will be functional to collect teachersperceptions and points of view about their performances, especially in a training and reflective perspective.

We can try now to draw conclusions based on teachers’ practice analysis.Three performances; three different teaching styles. It is not our aim make evaluate about their effectiveness.Teaching practice of MN can be combined with a dynamic and lively performance.It is evident how much she cares her preparation and how she pays attention to the pupils’ feedback. She shows herself

safe and focused, but her movements made shots and sudden changes are linked to a performance still jerky and smooth: it islikely we can attribute this aspect to her young age. Her performance can be compared with a specific moment of a balletopera: a prologue.

The performance of F, however, appears decidedly static. As shown from the analysis, the teacher always plays a centralrole in the scene. It is sufficient for her to move the head and sometimes the arms, to get the attention of pupils and maintaincontrol of the class. Therefore, her performance is comparable to a variation, both for the centrality of the dancer, and for hertechnical expression (e.g. like ‘‘plastic’’ poses of Martha Graham). Finally ML, with her ‘‘latent’’ performance, without a realchoreographed routine. Her teaching practice consists of deeds, inexpressive and less careful to the comparison and to theeffective interaction with the other actors that are moving on the scene. Her teaching action can be associated with acharacter dance. In this dance, the main character is in a lateral position respect to the scenic space, but all that happens isalways in relation to his/her person. On stage there are people with their characteristic dances (many dancers participate inthese dances, so the stage is fully occupied by their presence). The queen, or at least the main character, in an other side,continues to perform in an essential and expressive pantomime made out of everyday gestures without a particularchoreography, while she is looking at the people. Such a scenario expresses perfectly what happens during the lesson takeninto analysis.

For now, only descriptive analysis and correlations with length of service were carried out. But it is possible tohypothesize future path that are able to consider different variables like gender, teaching matter and, school level.

This study demonstrates how contextualize, describe and identify the characteristics of teaching, researching possibleitineraries of meaning, is not easy. This study is an attempt which, fleeing adrift of a mere observation of behavioural matrix,suggests an alternative category to analyze, investigate, study and understand the teacher’s work. Several, are the questionsand possible paths of research for the future. How do teachers live their body at work? How do they put the objects in spaceand how do they move with fluidity in the class? What aspects characterize their ‘‘dance’’, their performance? How do theyjuggle the various tools? How do they coordinate different instrumental actions to perform competently (fluency andrhythm) their work? Which movements punctuate their ‘‘dance’’? What kind of knowledge conveys their body in work?What is the choreography of their routines (the dexterity of the body)?

The answers to these questions cannot disregard from a reflection and a research divorced from practice. It makes it sonecessary an investigation that, as just stated above, is in direct contact with practical and concrete teaching practice.

As in a pas de bourree (step of junction or connecting) is necessary to prepare for a pique arabesque of great complexity, thisstudy seeks to act as a liaison for complex but possible future research itineraries.

References

Adshead-Lansdale, J. (Ed.). (1999). Dancing texts: Intertextuality in interpretation. London: Dance Books.Beckett, D., & Morris, G. (2001). Ontological performance; bodies, identities and learning. Studies in Education of Adults, 33(1), 35–48.Billett, S. (2003). Sociogeneses, activity and ontogeny. Culture and Psychology, 9(2), 133–169.Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Bruni, A., & Gherardi, S. (2007). Studiare le pratiche lavorative. Bologna: il Mulino.Butler, S. (2008). Performance, art and ethnography. Qualitative Social Research, 9/2(34), 1–11.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press.Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help us think about diversity? Mind, Culture and Activity, 5(4), 291–304.Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.Dirksmeier, P., & Helbrecht, I. (2008). Time, non-representational theory and the ‘‘performative turn’’ – towards a new methodology. Qualitative Social Research, 9/

2(55), 1–15.Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.

S. Pastore, M. Pentassuglia / International Journal of Educational Research 70 (2015) 16–3030

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.),Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136.Farnell, B. (1984). Report on the first international congress on movement notation. Tel-Aviv University, August 12–22.Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(2), 123–141.Foster, S. L. (2011). Choreographing empathy. New York, NY: Routledge.Galimberti, U. (2003). Il corpo.. Milano: Feltrinelli.Gamelli, I. (2007). Sensibili al corpo. I gesti della formazione e della cura. Roma: Maltemi Editore.Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2001). Il pensiero pratico: Una etnografia dell’apprendimento. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 2, 231–256.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Goffman, E. (1969). Strategic interaction. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press.Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.Henze, R. (1992). Informal teaching and learning: a study of everyday cognition in a Greek community. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystallization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook

of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Laban, R. (1975). A life for dance: Reminiscences. London: Mac Donald & Evans.Laban, R. (1999). L’arte del movimento. Macerata: Ephemeria.LeCompte, M. (2009). Trends in research on teaching: An historical and critical overview. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on

teachers and teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.Lave, J. (1996). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning – Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mauss, M. (1979). Sociology and psychology. London: Routledge.Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. From the stend point of a social behaviourist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Motterle, L. (2009). L’esperienza dell’altro nella Contact Improvisation: Un percorso fenomenologico dall’avere all’essere. In Danza e ricerca (pp. 59–78).

Laboratorio di studi, scritture, visioni.Mumby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how they develop it. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Washington, DC:

American Educational Research Association.O’Loughlin, M. (1998). Paying attention to bodies in education. Theoretical resources and practical suggestions. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 30(3), 275–297.Oliva, G. (2005). Educazione alla teatralita e formazione. Dai fondamenti del movimento creativo alla form-a-zione. Milano: Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere

Economia Diritto.Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Ponte, P. (2002). How teachers become action researchers and how teacher educators become their facilitators. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 399–423.Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000). What do the new views of knowledge have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking-cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Salomon, P. (1995). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schatzki, T., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.Shilling, C. (2003). The body and social theory. London: Sage Publications.Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Schon, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34.Scribner, S. (1985). Knowledge at wortk. Antropology and Education Quarterly, 16(3), 199–206.Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Sparti, D. (2005). Suoni inauditi. L’improvvisazione nel jazz e nella vita quotidiana. Bologna: Il Mulino.Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Sudnow, D. (1978). Ways of the hand: The organization of improvised conduct. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Turner, B. S. (1996). The body & society: Explorations in social theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Turner, B. S. (2006). The Sociology of the Body. 21st Century Sociology, 1–11.Turner, B. S., & Rojek, C. (2001). Society and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Wallace, M. J. (1998). Action research for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.Wainwright, S. P., & Turner, B. S. (2003). Ageing and the dancing body. In C. Faircloth (Ed.), Ageing bodies: Meanings and perspective. Boston, MA: Alta Mira Press.Wainwright, S. P., & Turner, B. S. (2004). Epiphanies of embodiment: Injury, identity and the balletic body. Qualitative Research, 4(3), 311–338.Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.

Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wilke, L., Calvert, T., Ryman, R., & Fox, I. (2005). From dance notation to human animation: The LabanDancer project. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 16,

201–211.