Dance is considered one activity area within the school curriculum that has the potential to make a significant contribution to a range of educational outcomes for young children (Bonbright et al., 2013). Advocates of dance research have consistently pointed to the potential benefits of dance for young children, suggesting that it can increase creativity, cognition, and wider educational attainment (Giguere, 2011; Hanna, 2008). In recent years, emerging research is showing an interest in cross-curricular links, exploring how dance can potentially develop curricular learning for children, especially within literacy (Adams, 2016).

Dance advocates claim that dance can have a positive impact on literacy because it is believed to enable children to engage in meaning-making through “semiotic activities” (Adams, 2016, p. 32); i.e. explore new and challenging knowledge and concepts using their bodies as tools. The process of dance-making enables pupils to engage in a way of learning (e.g., think metaphorically, interpret artistic intent, make inferences, sequencing) that reflects/supports some of the key cognitive processes involved in reading (Hanna, 2008). Opportunities to explore, interpret and construct meaning, concepts or ideas kinaesthetically (i.e. embodied cognition), in a different mode/context, holds promise to support deeper levels of understanding (Leonard et al., 2016). Despite convincing arguments by dance researchers and practitioners, the evidence base is limited (Bonbright et al., 2013). Recent studies in the early years yield positive results (e.g., Duncan et al., 2017) but questions remain about the role of dance across the primary (and secondary) curriculum. Further robust research is therefore needed to examine whether making a different or better use of existing dance curriculum provision holds promise to improve reading achievement in schools.

To advance this line of inquiry, the pilot study reported sought to review the available research on effective teaching of dance and reading (objective 1) in order to inform the development of an evidence-based dance programme specifically designed to improve children’s reading comprehension (objective 2), which was subsequently implemented and evaluated in a primary school in England (objective 3). Specifically, two primary schools and four year 4 classes were involved in the study (two participating in the intervention and two acting as waiting list  / control groups). Alongside the main objective of measuring the effects of dance on reading comprehension, the study had one secondary objective: (ii) to examine pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions on the content, the nature and quality of the dance intervention.

Study Design and Participants. The study took place in two state co-educational primary schools in England adopting a natural experimental design. The participants in the study were approximately 100 Year 4 (KS 2) pupils aged between 8 and 9 [the final number of participants is not known at the time of submission]. Each school’s two Year 4 classes were involved in the study and provided two intact study groups: a dance-based physical education (DBPE) group, that were assigned to receive the intervention within eight 45-min lessons; and a control, waiting-list group, which participated in their regular PE lessons delivered by the PE Specialist or classroom teacher employed by the schools. Data were collected from the same population of participants (both groups) at two points in time: Time 1 (T1) – at the start of the intervention to obtain baseline information; and Time 2 (T2) – at the end of the eight lessons to examine changes occurring as a result of participation (and to compare results between the groups). Reading test. To measure pupils’ reading comprehension, schools agreed to offer the research team access data to pupils’ achievement scores (as part of their regular assessments). Furthermore, as a result of a consultation with an experienced year 4 teacher, two reading comprehension tests were selected from existing resources and administered to all pupils (different texts were given at T1 and T2). Pupil questionnaire. A pupil questionnaire was also developed and distributed to both groups at both points in time (T1 and T2). The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect demographic information (gender), explore pupils’ attitudes towards and experiences of dance and PE. Pupil focus groups and teacher interview. Pupils in the intervention group also participated in 30-minutes focus groups with the aim to explore their views on the nature and quality of the dance lessons (process evaluation). For the same purpose, the teachers delivering the dance programme participated in a semi-structured interview. Data analysis. For the impact analysis, and the primary outcome measure, the difference between pre- and post-intervention RC scores was calculated to derive a ‘gain score’ (Gorard and Gorard 2015). The difference in gain scores between the two groups was then used to create a standardised ‘effect size’. The size and likelihood of these effects was evaluated using ‘Magnitude-Based Inferencing’ (MBI) (Hopkins et al. 2009). Qualitative data from the focus groups were analysed using grounded theory (Charmaz 2006).

[This is a feasibility study. The dance programme was still implemented at the time of submission. Here will report results from the pilot study conducted the year before. The results to be presented will be different to what is reported here]. Results suggest that the intervention had a likely moderate impact on RC. 60 counterfactual cases would need to be added to the control group to eliminate the effect size. This number is considerably more than the size of the intervention group, which indicates that the effect is very unlikely to be due to chance or biases caused by missing data or attrition. The results above suggest that, overall, the pupils benefitted from DBPE participation. The pupils themselves reported positive dance-related learning outcomes. When asked to identify three things they’ve learned as a result of DBPE participation, the majority of pupils could identify and explain key terms which relate to dance composition – e.g., canon, fragmentation, stimulus. The vast majority of pupils (80%) reported enjoying participation in the DBPE intervention. This was perhaps best exemplified by one male pupil who reported ‘struggling with reading’ but still ‘found the [dance] lessons fun’. Many pupils identified the creative aspect of DBPE the most enjoyable, especially when they had opportunities to ‘express feelings’ and to ‘dance and play games’.

Bonbright, J., Bradley, K. and S. Dooling. 2013. Evidence: A Report on the Impact of Dance in the K-12 Setting. Silver Spring, MD: National Dance Education Organization. Duncan, M., Cunningham, A. and E. Eyre. 2017. “A Combined Movement and Story-Telling Intervention Enhances Motor Competence and Language Ability in Pre-Schoolers to a Greater Extent Than Movement or Story-Telling Alone.” European Physical Education Review. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17715772 Giguere, M. 2011. “Dancing Thoughts: An Examination of Children’s Cognition and Creative Process in Dance.” Research in Dance Education 12 (1): 5–28. Hanna, J. L. 2008. “A Nonverbal Language for Imagining and Learning: Dance Education in K–12 Curriculum.” Educational Researcher 37 (8): 491–506. Leonard, A. E., Hall, A. H. and D. Herro. 2016. “Dancing Literacy: Expanding Children’s and Teachers’ Literacy Repertoires Through Embodied Knowing.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 16 (3): 338–360.