Analysing Influence: Description or Analysis?
A Level 3 student is preparing an analysis of the influence of a choreographer on their own choreographic practice. They attended a two-hour workshop with a visiting choreographer whose work blends kapa haka-derived footwork with contemporary release technique. The student has a programme note, three filmed excerpts, and notes from the workshop. Their draft describes the choreographer's biography and lists the workshop exercises, then concludes that the choreographer 'uses culture and contemporary dance'. The teacher says the draft is descriptive, not analytical. The student has 800 words and one week. They want to add more biography because they think it shows research. The filmed excerpts show a repeated low stance, a rippling arm motif, and a moment where the dancers stamp and then freeze. The student's own choreography uses a similar low stance but not the arm motif.
1. Explain what the student must change to make the draft analytical, and why adding more biography would not solve the problem.
Read the worked answer
The student must move from describing what the choreographer did to analysing how and why specific choices produced meaning, and how those choices influenced the student's own work. Adding biography would add information but not analysis; it would still not explain the relationship between movement, context, and effect.
A stronger draft would:
- identify two or three specific movement features from the excerpts, such as the repeated low stance, the rippling arm motif, and the stamp-freeze moment;
- analyse what each feature does: for example, the low stance may signal groundedness and connection to whenua, while the freeze may create a moment of collective stillness;
- use the programme note and workshop notes as evidence, but test them against the movement rather than quoting them;
- explain how the student adopted, adapted, or rejected these features in their own choreography;
- evaluate the influence, including limits or tensions, such as using cultural vocabulary without sufficient understanding.
The student should cut the biography to one or two sentences and spend the words on movement evidence and reasoning. 800 words is enough for two detailed examples, not a life story.
2. Suggest a structure for the 800-word analysis that would meet the requirement.
Read the worked answer
Introduction (about 100 words): name the choreographer, the works or excerpts, and the specific focus -- for example, how the choreographer's use of low stance and freeze influenced the student's choreographic decisions. Avoid a full biography.
Context (about 120 words): explain the choreographer's stated intention and the cultural context, using the programme note and workshop notes. Be precise and avoid generalisations.
Analysis 1 (about 180 words): examine the low stance. Describe it, analyse its effect, and link it to the student's own use of a similar stance. Explain what the student changed and why.
Analysis 2 (about 180 words): examine the arm motif or the stamp-freeze. Analyse how it creates tension or collective focus. Explain whether the student adopted it, adapted it, or left it out.
Influence and evaluation (about 150 words): evaluate what the student learned and what remains unresolved. Discuss any ethical or cultural considerations.
Conclusion (about 70 words): state what the analysis shows about the choreographer's influence, without repeating the introduction.
This structure keeps the focus on analysis and evidence. The student should use specific movement description, not adjectives alone.