Chapter 5 Perceptions of Difference and Equality
5.3 Difference as Deficit: “Three Long and one Small”
Another interviewee unpacked this concept further to show how QOED allows for a more dialogic relationship with and between learners:
When I really listened to others’ ideas, their ideas became better than I had imagined.
Their ideas had provoked me to think about my own logic. I started to consider, ‘am I right in this way? If not, then what do I think about their ideas?’
This suggests the significance of differences among peers within a collaborative task, particularly in terms of offering greater challenges within learning. This connects to the Confucian quote emphasising the importance of perpetually challenging learners to think further on any issue: “Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous” (学而不思则罔，思而不学则怠) (Analects, 2.15). This learning through collaborative dialogue emphasises the importance of both listening and thinking. It also suggests that through active engagement with ideas and discussion, learners can deepen understanding, gain new insights and come to value different perspectives. This process of having ideas, but then allowing ideas to be released and re-imagined, is critical within the process of building collaborative relationships in which a sense of social interdependence shifts from a competitive to a cooperative mindset (Johnson & Johnson, 2009): the process of a shared exploration becomes more important than winning or losing in an otherwise
competitive learning environment. Achieving this state of being is not easy, as it can require a very deliberate action from teachers (Rowe, et al., 2021).
Such a professional transformation can be difficult however, due to the habitual practices associated with teaching and learning that my interviewees had built through their life journeys as both students and teachers. In the following section, I examine these habitual mindsets in more depth, and consider how these may impact the implementation of QOED. It is hoped that by clearly identifying these mindsets and their impact, teachers may be better positioned to reflect on how they might further transform their teaching practices to better achieve the aspirations of QOED.
mainstream and traditional dance classes (e.g., folk dance, ballet, Chinese classical dance and choreography). This section therefore explores how QOED teachers perceive differences among students within their institutions as a whole and proposes that these differences are generally perceived as a deficit. This conceptualisation of deficit within education highlights the importance given to identifying and addressing the weaknesses or shortcomings of individuals, often by emphasising deficiencies in their abilities or knowledge (Valencia, 1997). The deficit model presumes that individuals are perceived to be deficient in a particular area, based on a predetermined standard or norm (Pellegrini, 1991; Smit, 2012;
Carey, 2014; Pitzer, 2015; Valencia, 1997) and deficit thinking occurs among teachers when students are referred to as what they are not (Smit, 2012). Such normativity in education is often reflected in the establishment of standards and benchmarks that students are expected to meet (Biesta, 2017). These standards can take a variety of forms, such as standardised tests, grade point averages or curricular requirements (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012), and are intended to ensure that students attain a certain level of knowledge and skills that are deemed necessary for success in their academic and professional lives. Inevitably, these standards also reduce the possibility that a divergence from these norms could be valued as positive. As a result, it can be harder for a teacher who is focused on addressing norms to perceive
learners’ differences as something other than a deficit.
As a learner and teacher, I understand how entrenched these norms can be. It can be difficult to walk into a dance studio and not automatically start to rank all of the learners according to their distance from the ideal standard. In the following discussion, I unpack how QOED teachers perceive students as different from others within an educational context dominated by a singular ideal dance student, with norms and standards that progress towards that ideal.
This involves identifying students by what they are not, leading the teachers to perceive differences between students as indicators of deficiencies. That is, through very diverse criteria that include physical appearance, coordination, critical thinking, expression, performance confidence and academic ability, differences between students are not
considered a source of creative potential, but simply deviations from a standard. I examine how QOED teachers determine these deficiencies based on a variety of factors, always leading to a construction of hierarchies among students according to how a student can be measured as worse or better than another student, making less or more progress and
becoming less or more capable, in relation to the standard. As the following reflections from teachers illustrate, this focus on difference as an indicator of qualitative assessment against
an ideal inhibits perceptions of difference as a phenomenon that might be valued as a tool for creativity, through pluralist decision making within collaborative endeavours. Instead, this identification of differences as deficits leads teachers to construct categories for deficiencies, in the form of class levels/groupings, which can then be employed to minimise differences within those categories.
5.3.2 Acknowledging Difference: “There is Always Dengji”
While teachers acknowledge that this classification of students is based on standards against an ideal, this presents a tension within an educational context that values the emergence of new ideas. When learners strive for uniformity instead of celebrating difference, movement into a
“state of becoming” based on unique perspectives is discouraged. The attitude of difference- as-deficit has thus been critiqued by dance scholars who are more concerned with a student- centric approach to education, particularly as a means of enhancing creative potential, as it can limit students’ opportunities to explore and express their full range of physical, emotional and creative potentials (Stinson, 2005; Wang, 2015). As one of my interviewees explained,
People are sensitive with the chayihua [差异化; difference] among people. On the surface, there seems no hierarchy among students, but actually there is always dengji [等级; hierarchy].
She suggests here that the concept of differences between students is assumed to be
inherently hierarchical. Even in situations where equality is valued or promoted, subtle forms of hierarchy remain at play as differences continue to exist even when they are not overtly acknowledged. This can establish assumptions regarding the comparative value of students, as one interviewee reflected, “Because I taught them last semester, I knew who had better logical thinking and was more creative”. The quote suggests that students are creative and critical abilities are not necessarily valued according to the differences that they present, but according to the teacher’s perception of logic, as a standardised ideal, that supports creativity.
This warrants further consideration as it suggests that creativity is based on a series of logical premises (e.g., particular factors that make a dance beautiful) that can be measured against a standard. Alternatively, it may indicate a belief that the ability to engage in logical thinking can liberate a mind from replication and allow it to innovate. Regardless of this, the teacher nevertheless maintains a perception of students as fixed in their capabilities, and so utilises their prior teaching experiences and relationships with the students to not only determine the
learner’s logical thinking and creativity skills, but to do so in a comparative way that identifies who is closer or further from a presumed ideal.
5.3.3 Judging Bodies First: “No Shortcomings Except Fat”
While other interviewees in this research also identified logic as a criterion when describing and differentiating learners according to expected norms, they generally seemed concerned with identifying distinctions in the learners’ physical appearances and technical abilities as dancers. As one stated,
Their body conditions are not good… One of them…had poor logic, poor expression skills, bad technical abilities, and was not coordinated.
This highlights the significant role of normativity and standards in shaping the interviewee’s perceptions of students’ abilities and strengths, as well as expectations for their performance and success in dance education in China. They emphasised the normative standard of body image in dance education, with students’ body image being judged as “not good”. This suggests that there is an expectation for dancers to have a certain body type, such as “san chang yi xiao (三长一小)”. This translates as three long and one small and means that the standard for a dancer’s body shape should be “long arms, long legs, long neck (three long) and a small head (one small)” (Wang, 2015, p. 43); deviation from this norm is seen as a deficit. This norm and standard fits within an educational framework that is centred on the achievement of a preconceived and immutable conceptualisation of excellence, which is focused on a particular (and very narrow) aesthetic perception of the human body. The perception that one ideal within that vision of excellence (a slim body) is so significant that it means all other qualities are disregarded is expressed in the following QOED teacher’s comment. While a variety of qualities are presented that might otherwise enable the student to be perceived as excellent, the teacher’s perception of “fat” as a shortcoming means that this difference in body shape became seen as a highly significant deficit,
That girl has a good brain, a strong professional ability, and there were no shortcomings except fat. She was very coordinated, very creative, had a good sense of music, a good sense of rhythm, and a very good performance ability. She learned moves very fast, everything was very good, and then the literacy was also very good.
While this interviewee felt she was appreciating diverse qualities of the learner, apart from the factor that appeared as a deficit, such as a “sense of music”, “sense of rhythm”, “creative”,
“expression”, it could be argued that she was fundamentally diminishing a valuing of difference.
Despite all of these points of differentiation, the learner was being reduced to a single category of deficiency: too fat. This way of perceiving difference reinforces conventional norms in dance education and can be detrimental to the promotion of diversity and difference in dance education (Anttila et al., 2019).
The reflections shared by my interviewees further revealed how learners absorbed and adopted such perceptions of deficiency. One interviewee observed that students sometimes self-select themselves as worse, based on perceived better/worse categories associated with body condition:
After my course, a fat girl came to tell me that she felt that her condition is not good enough and might not be suitable [for this course]. But in fact, she is very good in the classes, including making PPT and the final course reports. The ones in her group who are slim and long have a better physical condition, so she might feel that there may be some psychological pressure or something.
What appears remarkable within this narrative is that even when the teacher was made aware of how an expectation to adhere to a norm was impacting this girl’s desire to continue
dancing, the teacher nevertheless perpetuated her own assumptions regarding such norms, and did not question the way she categorised the learner as a “fat” girl and determined that other learners in her group “who are slim and long have a better physical condition”. While this interviewee was sensitive to the concern that the student may be experiencing peer pressure within the group as a result of this perceived difference, she did not offer further reflections on how the surrounding educational framework may be problematically positioning this learner’s physical difference as a deficit.
5.3.4 Prioritising Performance: “The Only Dance Profession”
The assumption of differences in physical appearance being a deficit in dance learning becomes even more significant when this deficit is perceived as resulting in a deficit in dance performance. Among the norms expected of dance learners, an ability to excel in dance performance is perceived as fundamental to their progress as a learner. As one of my interviewees shared,
The difference among students is very obvious in professional universities. For example, if a student is in a class, who is not a class cadre, nor a study committee
member, even not good at literacy, but with very top skills in dance, the student will still have strong potential to become a professional.
This reflection suggests that the normative expectations in dance education differ from those in other academic fields. While identifying that the student is “not good at literacy”, in the context of dance education this is less significant as a deficit than in other areas.
Professionality and standards in dance education are fundamentally based on a student’s theatrical, technical and performance proficiency and skill level, rather than their ability in academic areas or official leadership roles. This extends from the admission standards established in yikao (artistic examination) in China (see Section 2.6.2). For example, if students can perform dance pieces well and demonstrate a very high technique like jumping high and spinning fast, they are likely to get high scores in the examination (Zhao, X. C., 2022). As the previous quotes suggest however, these abilities are perceived as very closely aligned with their physical appearance, so that if a learner is perceived as deficient in terms of their physical appearance, this limits their potential to be valued through other criteria
associated with dance education. This standard is perceived as a valid criterion even if the students are not seeking a career in dance as a professional performer (Leng, 2015) but as a teacher or choreographer. This further presumes dance performance as a fundamental skill that needs to be mastered before another skill area (such as choreography) can be approached:
I know that choreography teachers don’t like students with less training experience…
because we all know each other and chat together. Teachers often say, ‘how can students choreograph if they are not coordinated? They need to dance and show their creation’.
This presents a particular belief that to choreograph well, one must first be able to perform well. If a learner is perceived to be deficient in performance, then it is automatically assumed that their skills in choreography will also be deficient. This is particularly significant as the subject of choreography is most associated with the teaching of creativity, and so it might be assumed that creative activity cannot be approached until a certain standard against the ideal dancer is achieved. This leads to questions as to how the process of striving towards a supposed ideal, and therefore not allowing differences to emerge, has an impact on students’
perceptions and experiences of creativity. From the above interviewee reflection, it can be gathered that achieving a normative standard in physical appearance and coordination and not appearing different is perceived as a fundamental requirement for a learner to extend their
creative development through choreography. This establishes a creative learning environment within choreography that inherently de-values difference.
Other studies have revealed how an ability to perform is similarly perceived among dance educators in China as fundamental to an ability to teach (Xiong, 2009). The prioritising of skills and appearance specific to the performance of particular dance styles, and not distinguishing skills such as an ability to create and critique in a dance class, has been
extensively critiqued (Stinson, 2016) and contrasts with the educational purpose of QOED to acknowledge and values the diverse qualities of students.
This perspective (prioritising) is further projected onto the students, with presumptions about their interests. The institutional assumption that all dance learners should fundamentally be seeking to learn how to be elite performers was emphasised by another interviewee, who explained,
Although some of the students major in Dance Studies [a more theoretical
programme], the technique-training teachers think, deep down, that these students are actually majoring in Performance. The university environment makes students feel that performing is the only dance profession.
This suggests that standards and norms associated with dance education are so entrenched that regardless of the learner’s career and learning goals, they will be differentiated and identified as deficient according to the teacher’s established values. While Confucius identified the student’s particular interests as being the purpose of education (see Section 2.5.2), the purpose here is to use a universal physical training system to try to conform all learners to a similar physical standard. In other words, when the technique teacher values performance-based training, they may not fully understand the students’ intended career paths or areas of focus within the field of dance. In this way, the university environment may be limiting and discouraging students who have diverse interests and career aspirations, pushing them towards a narrow view of what their career options could be within the dance field (Tambling, 2015). This entrenched institutional perspective can make it harder for QOED teachers to perceive and value differences among students based on diverse objectives, and not simply fall back into a deficit pedagogic mindset. Among my interviewees, there was an assumption that all teachers share the same understanding of how differences indicate the way a student is better or worse. As one of my interviewees explained, “everyone can see whether the student is good or not”. Whether or not this claim is true, this teacher’s belief that
all dance educators in China perceive difference as better/worse, based on the same standards and norms, indicates the power that this sense of difference has in her own understandings of dance education. Differences among learners (as points on a good/bad spectrum) appear to be understood by all teachers as inherent, rather than socially constructed. Moreover, these norms and standards do not arise solely from individual teacher beliefs but also from a collective perception present in the larger educational community.
5.3.5 Predetermined Value: “Pugaosheng or Yixiaosheng?”
It is further worth noting that this deficit perception of differences among students was not limited to the evaluation of individual students, but was also directed at entire cohorts, as measured against a presumed norm for cohorts. As one teacher surmised, “This year’s students dance ability is not very good and their thinking is rigid”.
Such distinctions were often attributed to o the previous training systems the dance learners had experienced, reinforcing a sense that differences between learners were not only deficits but also immutable. Foremost among these distinctions was that between dance learners’
backgrounds, that is, whether they came from pugao (普高; a regular high school, with learners having to gain dance abilities through extra-curricular learning) or from yixiao (艺 校; a dance-training college that mixes high school and fulltime dance performance training) (see Section 2.6.2). Students from these different locations may gain entry into tertiary dance programmes according to two different examination methods, yikao (a standardised
examination of performance capability) and gaokao (a standardised general academic assessment) (see Section 2.6.2). One interviewee reflected on this,
The knowledge structure of the students we recruit is not the same. There are some pugaosheng with test scores of more than 600 points (gaokao), with high level English skills, and others are yixiaosheng with high professional dance scores.
Generally, the teachers assume that students who have had more dance training (yixiaosheng) will be better than those who have had less dance training (pugaosheng). They value certain skills and abilities above others, and this may influence their perceptions of students’
potential and success in the field of dance. For example, pugaosheng were perceived as being lower on the dance skill hierarchy compared to other students, which may lead to bias or prejudice on the part of teachers who value performance skills above other abilities and