NZ Scholarship Dance common mistakes
NZ Scholarship Dance · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing programme notes or a rationale that describes what the dance 'is about' in plot or theme terms without naming the specific choreographic devices (repetition, canon, motif development, spatial patterning, dynamics) that produce that meaning.
Candidates come from performance or appreciation backgrounds where 'interpretation' is rewarded, and they have not internalised that Scholarship Dance rewards analytical vocabulary applied to concrete movement evidence rather than thematic summary. It happens most when time pressure pushes students toward the safest, most familiar register.
What to do instead
Before writing, draft a two-column plan: left column = the effect or idea claimed; right column = the exact device, body part, level, direction, and timing that creates it. If the right column is empty or vague, cut the claim. Practise on three short excerpts by writing one sentence per device using the frame '[Device] occurs when [body part] moves [action] at [level/direction] on [timing], producing [effect].'
Treating 'dance' as a single tradition and analysing all works through one Eurocentric contemporary or ballet lens, ignoring the specific cultural context, protocols, and movement logic of Māori, Pacific, Asian, or other non-Western works studied.
Many candidates have trained mainly in one genre and default to its aesthetic criteria (line, elevation, frontal presentation) when judging works from other traditions. They may also fear misrepresenting a culture and so retreat into generic praise rather than specific, informed analysis.
What to do instead
Build a one-page context card per work studied: originating culture, key protocols (e.g. tikanga around waiata, haka, or pōwhiri), the function of the dance, and its own aesthetic values. Analyse each work against its own stated purposes rather than against ballet norms. Where you are unsure of cultural detail, describe the movement precisely and cite the source you studied instead of guessing at meaning.
Producing an essay that lists many works briefly (a survey) rather than developing sustained, evidence-based argument about a smaller number of works.
Candidates equate breadth with sophistication and worry that omitting a work will lose marks. Under exam conditions, listing feels safer than committing to a line of argument that could be judged wrong.
What to do instead
Choose two or three works and build a clear thesis, then allocate roughly equal word counts to each with movement-specific evidence. Deliberately drop any work that cannot be analysed in depth. Rehearse this by writing a 250-word paragraph on one work and checking that it contains at least three specific movement references and one evaluative judgement.
Using evaluative adjectives such as 'powerful', 'fluid', 'dynamic', or 'emotive' as if they were analysis, without stating what in the movement or production produced that impression.
These words are absorbed from reviews and programme notes and feel authoritative. Candidates often do not realise that an unsupported adjective is treated as an assertion rather than evidence.
What to do instead
Apply a self-check: circle every evaluative adjective in a draft and either delete it or attach a because-clause naming the movement, spatial, or production element responsible. Replace 'the solo was powerful' with a sentence naming the specific action, timing, and focus that created the impact.
Analysing only the dancer's body and ignoring production elements - lighting, set, costume, sound, and staging - when these carry much of the choreographic meaning.
Candidates who train as performers watch bodies, not the whole stage picture, and often have limited vocabulary for design. In written answers they reproduce what they physically remember doing rather than what a full production communicates.
What to do instead
Practise a 'whole-stage' viewing exercise: watch a short excerpt three times, once tracking only bodies, once only light and space, once only sound and costume, and record observations each time. In essays, require at least one production-element observation per work and explain how it interacts with the movement rather than merely describing it.
Describing choreography as a sequence of steps ('then she does a turn, then a jump') instead of analysing structure, phrasing, and the relationship between sections.
Sequential description is the easiest way to fill space and mirrors how dancers learn repertoire. Candidates often do not distinguish between recounting and analysing, and under time pressure revert to narrative order.
What to do instead
Rewrite one sequential paragraph as a structural one: identify the phrase boundaries, the repetition or contrast between phrases, the build and release of tension, and the overall form (e.g. ternary, rondo, accumulation). Use a timeline diagram of the excerpt before writing so the analysis is organised by structure rather than chronology.
Making unsupported claims about a choreographer's intention or the audience's response ('the choreographer wanted to show...', 'the audience felt...') without evidence from the work or from documented sources.
Candidates confuse personal response with authorial intent and assume that a strong reaction in themselves is a general truth. They may also have read a review and absorbed its claims without noting the source.
What to do instead
Separate three registers in your notes: what the movement does (observable), what you infer (flagged as interpretation), and what is documented (attributed to a source such as an interview or programme note). In the essay, use phrasing such as 'the movement suggests' rather than 'the choreographer intended', and cite the source when you do assert intent.
Running out of time because the candidate spends most of the allocated period planning or writing an overlong opening, leaving the final argument underdeveloped or missing a conclusion.
Scholarship questions often reward extended, tightly argued responses, and candidates over-invest in a polished introduction. Anxiety about committing to a thesis also encourages prolonged planning.
What to do instead
Practise to a timed structure: no more than 10 per cent of the time on planning, a one- or two-sentence opening that states the thesis immediately, and a reserve of the final 10 per cent for a conclusion that answers the question directly. Do at least three full timed run-throughs before the exam and review where the time actually went.
Answering the question that was expected rather than the one set - for example, writing a general appreciation of a work when the question asks to compare how two works manipulate time or space.
Candidates rehearse predicted topics and then pattern-match the question to their prepared material, skimming over the operative verbs (compare, analyse, evaluate, discuss) and the specific constraint.
What to do instead
Underline the command word and the limiting condition in every question before writing, then restate the question in your own words as a single sentence at the top of your plan. Check the finished essay against that sentence; if it would not answer a differently worded question equally well, it is too generic.
Writing in an informal or journalistic register - first-person anecdote, rhetorical questions, contractions, and review-style praise - rather than the analytical academic register expected.
Candidates read dance criticism and social media commentary and imitate that voice, and they may not have had explicit instruction in analytical writing conventions for dance. Personal response feels authentic and is therefore over-used.
What to do instead
Convert personal response into evidence-based analysis: replace 'I loved how...' with a statement of effect supported by movement detail. Keep a short list of formal connectives (however, consequently, by contrast, this establishes) and use them to link evidence to argument. Have a teacher or peer mark one draft solely for register before attempting another.