Thread: What do you think of this session format?

I am considering approaching a YMCA about teaching there, and I have a format I've been pondering for a while now that I think would work well. They offer classes in 7 week sessions, so I thought I should take advantage of the sessions format. What I would like to do is plan to teach 2-3 moves per class and a combo with those moves. Each class would add on to the last, and by the end of the session the students would have a simple choreography. I still have to work out how much material can be covered in that time without overloading them. But I thought it would be appealing to students to know they would be dancing a choreography by the end of the session, even if it's something very simple. Something to make them feel accomplished and really get the sense of actually dancing as opposed to learning a bunch of moves they don't know what to do with. I also want to keep them moving and dancing more so students who are looking for fitness get more activity.

Anyone ever done a format like this? Did it work well? What were the flaws?

My main concern is what to do in the next session. Another choreography? Repeat students might get bored. Should I space beginner material out enough to last a few sessions, then plan to have those students move up to the next level? Offer this as an "Intro" and let students move up very quickly?

Originally Posted by dima

My main concern is what to do in the next session. Another choreography? Repeat students might get bored. Should I space beginner material out enough to last a few sessions, then plan to have those students move up to the next level? Offer this as an "Intro" and let students move up very quickly?

Well, I'm starting to think it is a good thing to separate absolute beginners from more advanced beginners.

With respect to the format, I think it would work better as an advanced beginner format. Absolute beginners need to work on more than just 2-3 things per class, because some things are going to take them much time to develop any level of competency with.

I think 2-3 things per class is a good idea - but some will need revisiting ie obviously you won't learn a move in a single session. If you start by giving them the basic combo then as the course moves along you can add refinements. Would be hard work for you - but it could be a real fun class. (Might pinch the idea myself)

For a repeat, I'm sure students will still be polishing technique. You could add layers for your repeat students eg first timers do a combination with figure eights and well co-ordinated repeats could add a level change; first timers do a walk; repeats look at adding shimmy etc

I don't like the idea of teaching choreography in early beginner classes. There are a lot of people in the dance community who believe the end justifies the means so much that they feel putting 6- or 8-week beginners in a show to do a repetitive, simple choreography is a good idea. They say getting students hooked on the performance bug and giving them a feeling of accomplishment encourages retention. To be honest, I think it mostly encourages the retention of the sort of students who put the dance community in an academic ghetto, where other dancers don't take us seriously and our standards are abysmally low compared to other performing arts. I've never met a dancer who went through a beginner's class like this and stuck with the dance that didn't look back and laugh, "What was my teacher thinking?! I should not have been led to believe I'd accomplished something after half a dozen classes!"

There's a big difference between "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and yay! you've successfully taken that step," and "Hooray! Now you have a routine you can perform for your friends and families, and let's all dance it at my upcoming hafla!" It's not quite as much fun, but the first classes really ought to concentrate on understanding fundamentals. If you start taking piano lessons, REAL piano lessons, you spend months learning how to read music and playing "pieces" that consist of one hand plunking along a note or two at a time. They don't start you off with a dumbed-down, slow version of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee" and there's a reason for it. It's difficult for students to learn respect for the amount of work that goes into being proficient when everything is muddied into one big "Everybody should have a shot at anything, regardless of their abilities."

My first teacher insisted that everyone needed to take the first class twice, before she would even entertain the idea of promoting you to the next level. Maybe you'd end up taking it more times than that before you were ready for promotion. Some students chose to never leave that first level. In that sense, mixing levels of beginners makes sense, because you're mixing on the basis of how many sessions you've bought, not actual competence. Otherwise, mixed classes can be problematic. Motivated students can get dragged down by pace of slower masses, and less serious students don't enjoy classes with a strong forward emphasis.

[Continued...]

In a perfect world, we'd have a system that rewards progress, not inertia, but most of the time, we rush to serve the interests of the students who aren't serious at the expense of instilling sloppy habits in the few who are. Who knows how many potentially dedicated students slip away because they get the wrong impression early on that nobody seems to take this dance seriously? Conversely, how many who aren't serious are turned off by the push to feel "progress," and to learn choreographies they don't want to perform?

I think everyone should have a solid Level I--not obsessively nagging and drill-y, but rigorous enough that you don't regret your first teacher later if you stick with it, then let the road fork. Level II should peel off the low-motives for fun classes and the high-motives for better focus, not jumble everybody together indefinitely. Then again, I'm not teaching now, and it's easy for me to be ruthless. If you're the sort of student who's going to flounce after six weeks because you're bored and you didn't learn enough, and you want to start performing, good riddance and goodbye. Which is not to say that a class of repeated material shouldn't still be as interesting the second time as the first....

With respect to the format, I think it would work better as an advanced beginner format. Absolute beginners need to work on more than just 2-3 things per class, because some things are going to take them much time to develop any level of competency with.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but I don't see how teaching more moves per class and thus spending less time practicing each move would equate a higher level of competency. My thought was to focus on less moves and drill them, then add them to a very simple combo where they practice going through the 2-3 moves they learned to get a feel for them while dancing as opposed to just drilling the whole class. I think it's important to get even beginners to experience dancing, to loosen up and feel the movements, not just drill drill drill them into frustration. Drills are important, but there needs to be more than just drills. That's mythought process and it's always worked well for me in the past.

I think 2-3 things per class is a good idea - but some will need revisiting ie obviously you won't learn a move in a single session.

True, I haven't yet fully worked out how to revisit. Maybe at the beginning of each class review the movements from last class. At the end of each class go over the combos taught this far and give them time to remember and practice the moves they learned then go over anything that needs review.

I don't like the idea of teaching choreography in early beginner classes. There are a lot of people in the dance community who believe the end justifies the means so much that they feel putting 6- or 8-week beginners in a show to do a repetitive, simple choreography is a good idea.

I think you're taking my meaning of "choreography" way further than I even considered. What I mean by a simple choreography is 4 counts of this move, 4 counts of that move, 4 counts of this, etc. just enough dancing and choreography to allow them to get the feeling of dancing without feeling like they are drilling. It's nothing fancy enough to be performed and I certainly have no intention to throw anyone on stage. There will always be people who think taking one session of a bellydance class will make them ready to perform, but I'm not holding ALL my students back from enjoying dancing just because of a few bad apples.

Originally Posted by dima

I think you're taking my meaning of "choreography" way further than I even considered. What I mean by a simple choreography is 4 counts of this move, 4 counts of that move, 4 counts of this, etc. just enough dancing and choreography to allow them to get the feeling of dancing without feeling like they are drilling. It's nothing fancy enough to be performed and I certainly have no intention to throw anyone on stage. There will always be people who think taking one session of a bellydance class will make them ready to perform, but I'm not holding ALL my students back from enjoying dancing just because of a few bad apples.

Ah, well, we are each a victim of our own experience. I know teachers who do put these simplified choreographies on stage. In the case of one teacher I took from, you learned movements in the order they occurred in the routine, starting from the first class, so that by the end of the series, you were ready to "perform" your "choreography." It worked out quite a bit better in the 13-week format she was using at one facility than the 6-week format from the studio I was going to, but I still thought it felt extremely rushed, and the beginner material was review to me.

Originally Posted by dima

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but I don't see how teaching more moves per class and thus spending less time practicing each move would equate a higher level of competency. My thought was to focus on less moves and drill them, then add them to a very simple combo where they practice going through the 2-3 moves they learned to get a feel for them while dancing as opposed to just drilling the whole class. I think it's important to get even beginners to experience dancing, to loosen up and feel the movements, not just drill drill drill them into frustration. Drills are important, but there needs to be more than just drills. That's mythought process and it's always worked well for me in the past.

You're not spending less time on each move when you consider the entire session. I think spending 5 minutes on shimmying in each of 10 classes (50 minutes total but spread over 10 weeks) is better than spending 50 minutes on shimmies in one class. That is an exaggeration of what you suggested, but the same principle. I tell the university students in my biology classes the same thing -- that studying daily for 10-15 minutes is better than an all-nighter of cramming the several days before the exam.

And I don't just drill absolute beginners, we do put together combos and "dance" from day one, I just personally couldn't stick to the 2-3 new moves per week for absolute beginners. I also would have a hard time forcing a choreography via that route.

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

I don't like the idea of teaching choreography in early beginner classes. There are a lot of people in the dance community who believe the end justifies the means so much that they feel putting 6- or 8-week beginners in a show to do a repetitive, simple choreography is a good idea. They say getting students hooked on the performance bug and giving them a feeling of accomplishment encourages retention. To be honest, I think it mostly encourages the retention of the sort of students who put the dance community in an academic ghetto, where other dancers don't take us seriously and our standards are abysmally low compared to other performing arts. I've never met a dancer who went through a beginner's class like this and stuck with the dance that didn't look back and laugh, "What was my teacher thinking?! I should not have been led to believe I'd accomplished something after half a dozen classes!"

I'm gonna disagree with this. This is actually how I started. We learned 2-3 moves each class, and did a little combo at the end. The combined combos made a small and rather easy choreo at the end. And yes, we did perform it. We had a small show for the students' families. Which I think is a "secure environment" for a first student perfomance. I don't think anyone felt the urge to perform elsewhere. But it was just nice to show your family what you had learned (even though it was not much, see my second post)

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

If you start taking piano lessons, REAL piano lessons, you spend months learning how to read music and playing "pieces" that consist of one hand plunking along a note or two at a time. They don't start you off with a dumbed-down, slow version of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee" and there's a reason for it. It's difficult for students to learn respect for the amount of work that goes into being proficient when everything is muddied into one big "Everybody should have a shot at anything, regardless of their abilities."

And again I gotta disagree. When I started taking piano lessons I did learn little dumbed-down pieces. And I think this keeps the interest of a seven-year old alive. It gives the feeling of having accomplished something and it's nice to be able to play for your family, but of course I wasn't kidding myself into being able to play concerts. It's just good and encouraging to practice something that actually sounds nice in the end, even if it's just a little dumbed-down piece.

...continued

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

My first teacher insisted that everyone needed to take the first class twice, before she would even entertain the idea of promoting you to the next level. Maybe you'd end up taking it more times than that before you were ready for promotion. Some students chose to never leave that first level. In that sense, mixing levels of beginners makes sense, because you're mixing on the basis of how many sessions you've bought, not actual competence. Otherwise, mixed classes can be problematic. Motivated students can get dragged down by pace of slower masses, and less serious students don't enjoy classes with a strong forward emphasis.

Really? Nobody would go up to the next level without repeating the first? That would have been a fail-save way to stop me from dancing at all. There's this thing called talent. Some have more of it, some have less. And a talented dancer can allready get pretty bored learning only 2-3 moves each lesson, whereas others think that's already too fast for them. For me repeating all this again would have been a nightmare. (I thought I was in the wrong level doing it the first time. And now 11 years later I still think the beginners' level was just too slow for me. I almost quit dancing then because it was simply boring for me. And don't get me wrong: I didn't consider myself being a master already, and I don't do that now. I just consider myself a quick learner with more talent than the average)
I think drilling and going back to the basics is essentual in every level, but you need to do something "fun" as well. That's why in general I think it's a good concept.

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

If you start taking piano lessons, REAL piano lessons, you spend months learning how to read music and playing "pieces" that consist of one hand plunking along a note or two at a time. They don't start you off with a dumbed-down, slow version of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Flight of the Bumblebee" and there's a reason for it. It's difficult for students to learn respect for the amount of work that goes into being proficient when everything is muddied into one big "Everybody should have a shot at anything, regardless of their abilities."

Perhaps not the flight of the bumblebee, but one absolutely does learn greatly simplified versions of great classical works very early on in real music lessions.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Perhaps not the flight of the bumblebee, but one absolutely does learn greatly simplified versions of great classical works very early on in real music lessions.

Right, of course I didn't start with that dumbed-down ;)

Not sure my previous posts were clear so I'm just following up with some more explanation.

I dump alot on my beginners in their first class session. I think of this as seed planting in a way. Some of it they are not going to get right away but I want to start their brains and bodies working towards it.

I talk a little about posture, but not too much, because postural problems are not going to be corrected by a lecture.

I go over a couple of basic arm positions and a couple of arm pathways.
Rib cage lifts, slides, and two kinds of circles
hip slides and circles
up and down hips
unweighted hip drops
basic Egyptian shimmy
1-2 simple footwork patterns (touch-step etc, box step, etc)
couple of combos using this stuff

My classes are 1.5 hrs long.

Originally Posted by LindaBintFarah

I'm gonna disagree with this. This is actually how I started.[...] Which I think is a "secure environment" for a first student perfomance. I don't think anyone felt the urge to perform elsewhere.

YMMV. My first teacher also had a policy that you had to have at least taken six months of classes before you were allowed to perform.

And again I gotta disagree. When I started taking piano lessons I did learn little dumbed-down pieces. And I think this keeps the interest of a seven-year old alive.

Originally Posted by ssipes

Perhaps not the flight of the bumblebee, but one absolutely does learn greatly simplified versions of great classical works very early on in real music lessions.

Again, different experience. I took lessons through the after-school system of the local university's conservatory. I think the first two books I used had only one "named" piece between them, and it was a two-handed arrangement of "Chopsticks." The rest of the pieces were no-name technique builders with titles like "The Happy Puppy" and "Little Brook." I also had a notebook of chords and scales to teach theory. Next, I went into a split system of books of classical compositions for children by major composers (green series of L&L was traditional Western European, blue was mostly 20th C. Eastern Bloc, although at some point I was also working with a separate book of Bartok's children's pieces). They believed it was more important to respect the music by playing what was written at your level, than to play more advanced compositions simplified and stripped of their sophistication. They didn't care if you knew the song. (Mozart's variations on "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" were in the second green book, IIRC.) They didn't care if you had fun. Their philosophy was "We don't want you if you're not serious." Their program was set up to turn children into the sort of professional musicians who played in symphonies or taught music at the university level someday eventually. I assume their after-school ballet program was comparably hardnosed. Now, admittedly, if we were that rigorous in our classes, we'd drive 90% of our students away. Then again, after a decade, we'd have probably raised the quality of what gets called a "professional belly dancer" by at least an order of magnitude.

Originally Posted by LindaBintFarah

Really? Nobody would go up to the next level without repeating the first?

I suppose if one is lucky to have a beginner's class that is not mostly older recreational students, dancers could be promoted faster. My first teacher didn't usually need to make that exception because she didn't see many students who could master the moves in six weeks. Many of them had never had formal dance classes, and they didn't tend to practice much at home. By making these rules, she didn't discourage the "fun" too much, but she kept it off the stage.

I guess it's just a different goal. I took piano lessons for fun. My parents wanted me to relate to music in a fun way. I never planned to be a professional musician, although I think here in Germany even the serious musicians start the way I did, and are encouraged if they turn out to be really good.
I think both ways are fine if you want to turn kids into professional musicians. But the way you described might drive those away who want to play an instrument just as a hobby.

About performance: Well the first performance was after 6 months, so no contradiction here ;). Our teacher did those little student shows (with an arab potluck, she gave us some recipes) twice a year. New classes started after the show.

But even without a student show, I think it's good to get people to actually dance (in class) regardless of how easy the combinations and choreos are. Because this way you connect to the dance and the music. I have seen technically awesome dancers whom I just don't enjoy watching, because they lack emotion and expression. But if you start "enjoying" this dance form from early on in your education, I think this can help a lot. Of course there are dancers who lack this quality even if they did start like this. Just as there are dancers who are great who didn't.
I just think to start like this is more encouraging and will get more people to stick with this beautiful dance.

Hi, Dima. I use something similar in my 5-week sessions; here's how it goes:

Class 1: introduce 4-5 (usually 4) movements

Class 2: continue with Class 1 material and add 1-2 more movements; make 2-movement combo

Class 3: All Class 2 material (which included Class 1 stuff) plus 1-2 more movements*; add to the combo

Class 4: same as Class 3

Class 5: work a bit of technique, then work the combo; preview a couple of movements from the next session lesson plan; "party dance"

* note: some "additional movements" might be variations on the basic

As you can see, I don't create a choreo for my beginners, but the combo they learn can be pretty extensive, although it does not always include every movement taught in that session. The combo is simple -- mostly 8 counts of this and 8 counts of that -- but I do bring musicality into it and therefore select the music carefully so that I can have their combos work with the music they hear.

For the following session, I include 2-3 movements from the previous one, plus new ones. This means that continuing students have the opportunity to improve their technique while new people are learning that technique for the first time, plus get new stuff.

My program is designed to prepare students for an intermediate level of study. Since the intermediate class is based on technical accomplishment rather than "time served," most folks need upwards of a year to "qualify" for intermediate. Those who practice at home and/or attend other classes might very well be ready for intermediate in 6 months. It's a very individual thing.

Deborah

Originally Posted by casbahdance

As you can see, I don't create a choreo for my beginners, but the combo they learn can be pretty extensive, although it does not always include every movement taught in that session. The combo is simple -- mostly 8 counts of this and 8 counts of that -- but I do bring musicality into it and therefore select the music carefully so that I can have their combos work with the music they hear.

Maybe that's a better word, a combo as opposed to a "choreography". Sounds like you end up with exactly what I had in mind. It could be performed, sure. Maybe some of the students will want to show it to their friends and family as a "look what I learned" and that's great. But it's not as advanced as a choreography. I was thinking something repeatable that can go with any 4 count of music. That way they can dance the combo to a variety of fun songs and get a bit of a workout while they're at it.

For my "Level 1" class, I offer 6-week sessions. I've experimented over the years with teaching choreography and teaching just technique, and the student feedback has consistently said that they like learning a choreography. At the end of the session, they like the feeling of having something tangible that they learned.

I have at least 4 beginner choreographies, so a student could repeat my Level 1 class 4 times before starting over with one they've already learned. (I say "at least" because sometimes I get bored with a choreo and retire it, and replace it with something new, but I usually have only 4 in rotation at any given time.)

Each of my beginner choreographies contains at least 3 step combinations, no more than 5. It uses repetition - for example, each time the melody does a chorus, it repeats the combination(s) used for the chorus, each time it does a verse, it repeats those for the verse, each time the song does an instrumental interlude between chorus/verse, it uses the interlude combination(s). This helps students tie the choreography to the music because every time they hear a certain melodic theme, they do the same combo.

I encourage my Level 1 students to take Level 1 at least twice before moving on to Level 2, but I promise them they'll learn a different choreography the second time, and I also tell them that the second time through, since they'll kinda-sorta know a little already, they'll be able to focus more on polishing their technique (nice arm carriage, posture, etc.) rather than trying to remember what a hip drop is. It's rare for someone to request permission to skip directly to Level 2 after finishing just one iteration of Level 1. When they do, I evaluate the request on the individual merits of the person asking.

As for performing....

I've been known to organize performance opportunities that include Level 1. For example, if I'm planning a recital for Levels 2/3, then I'll open the door for Level 1 to perform as well. My definition of "recital" is "attended solely by people invited by the performers", so a much narrower audience than a hafla. These are usually VERY informal - the audience comes to the studio and sits on the floor. No fancy theater rental, no food/drink, etc.

I do require that Level 1 aspiring performers demonstrate to me that they really have learned the choreography, and usually I'll have an extra rehearsal above and beyond the 6-week session which would-be performers are required to attend. I don't charge for the rehearsal.

I don't organize a "troupe" of Level 1 people who then go perform all over town. A student needs to be at least in Level 2 before I'll consider including her in a performance in front of the general public.

That sounds like a good way to do it, Shira. Sounds like you do something similar to what I have in mind and it works for you. I really like the idea of giving the students something attainable as a goal for the session.

Originally Posted by LindaBintFarah

There's this thing called talent. Some have more of it, some have less. And a talented dancer can allready get pretty bored learning only 2-3 moves each lesson

Mastery in one lesson? Really? Because although I smile and nod with students who get the gist in a lesson, it is extremely rare for one to get it 100% right. For those there are plenty of extensions, layers and combinations they can work on while the others work on the basics.

Even rarer than the person who, say, can do a totally vertical hip rock using the lateral flexors in the first lesson is the student who can do all the moves 100%. Often there is a family of moves which come naturally while others seem foreign.

I teach a simple choreography in every 6 week session, even my absolute beginners, very similar to what Shira does.

I don't personally think they learn the moves any better by *not* stringing three of them together at the end of the hour.

I keep my beginner choreos VERY simple -- little 2-3 minute songs with lots of repetition, mostly, and always using a simple and repetitive movement vocabulary.

To me, it's like teaching people to sew by having them produce an apron rather than just stitching randomly on pieces of fabric for 6 weeks. Sure, maybe one deluded student will think that because her apron didn't fall apart, she can now make a wedding dress -- but I tailor my classes toward normal folk and leave the insane to sort themselves out.

A sense of accomplishment helps feed the dedication that keeps them coming back to learn more and more.

My beginners take a minimum of 4 6-week sessions (6 months of classes) before moving on to the advanced beginner class. All the beginner choreos (or 'step samplers' if you prefer, since they're meant for teaching rather than performance) use the same basic movement vocabulary, so each week for 6 months they drill their beginner isolations. But one 6-week session might include, say, a 3-step turn, while another has shoulder work. And the music is radically different -- one pop song, one drum solo, one Emad Sayyah number, one dramatic gooey piece -- so they definitely have the feeling of doing something completely different each time.

I continue to teach this way through all the levels, and each 'teaching choreo' is meant to introduce new concepts. For instance, I teach a level 3 choreo to 'oyoun albi' where the students repeatedly switch between a baladi/Saidi movement vocabulary and a Raqs Sharqi one (as the music vacillates between different feelings with each verse & instrumental break). That choreo is also closely tied to the lyrics and is meant to teach them the importance of knowing the meaning of their song & expressing feeling while dancing.

After the first level, I alternate sessions of pure technique with sessions of choreo. But for my beginners, I like to make sure they get a chance to have some fun with their dancing right from the beginning!

My highest levels often take more than one session to learn a choreo, so we can spend as much time as necessary on the technique involved with that particular choreo.

I also find that attendance is better when they know they'll be behind in their choreo if they miss a week! It's more fun for them AND a much more structured program.

I also use simple choreographies so they have a feeling of accomplishment. I came up w/ a plan for my 5 week sessions---a fast music choreo, a veil choreo, or a drum solo. I cycle through these, using one a session.

A session starts tonight where we will finish a drum choreo started last time ( it was a little more difficult than what i usually do) and we will do a simple veil routine.

I make plans for the class and go as fast as the majority can go. I am personally learning to push people more, because in the past I didn't want them to feel too frustrated.

Originally Posted by taji-dancer

I make plans for the class and go as fast as the majority can go. I am personally learning to push people more, because in the past I didn't want them to feel too frustrated.

Me, too. I've found that most folks want to rise to an appropriate challenge!

Deborah

Originally Posted by kashmir

Mastery in one lesson? Really?

Of course not! I never said that. But it does get frustrating for people who get the move right away. I have been dancing hip hop before I started bellydancing. Our hip hop teacher used a variety of hip moves. I don't know if that's why, but I was just bored! While other beginners struggled so much with the moves that the instructor only payed them attention (yeah, I know, an instructor should be able to give better students a challenge or try to help them to polish their moves, but that just didn't happen. The teacher only looked at me for a short while, nodded and turned to others. And let's face it: if you have a room full of people and some are really struggling with the move, you rather fix that and prevent them from actually hurting themselves.). But anyway I think it's important to go back to the basics in every level, so why don't give students something more challenging and therefore also more fun. If they stick with the dance they have time to polish their moves, provided of course they do it correctly and most importantly in a healthy way from the start.

Back to topic: I like the way Shira plans her sessions. That's actually how I understood Dima's OP. I say: go for it.