Bharatanatyam Dance


Cultural Preservation


How to Cite

IYENGAR, K. M. (2019). Bharatanatyam Dance: Literacy Education Through Transmediation. Dev Sanskriti Interdisciplinary International Journal, 13, 16–24.


This article explores an Asian Indian American youth’s Bharatnatyam dance literacy education in a major city in the southwest of the U.S. I draw from sociocultural, multimodal, transmediation, and multiple intelligencies theories to support my claims. Findings reveal the young adult’s dance education contributed to cultural preservation (Iyengar & Smith, 2016). A plethora of research on the contributions of dance education in the physical development of children is available. This study offers understandings of how formal classical dance (Bharatanatyam) is both beneficial physically and psychologically. Dance, especially Bharatanatyam, culturally codified and schematized contributes to literacy learning in school.


Dewey, J. (1934/1980). Art as Experience. New York: Perigee.

Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A. H. (2003). The Brothers and Sisters Learn to Write: Popular Literacies in Childhood and School Cultures. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dyson, A. H. (2004). Diversity as a "handful": Toward retheorizing the basics. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 210-214.

Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. E. (Eds.) (1998). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Eisner, E. W. (1978). Reading and the creation of meaning. In E. W Eisner (Ed.), Reading, the arts, and the creation of meaning (pp. 13-31). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Eisner, E. W. (2006). Two Visions of Education. (The Arts Education Collaborative Monograph No. 2).Pittsburgh, PA: Arts Education Collaborative. Falk and Bluemenreich. (2005). The Power of Questions.

New York, NY: Postmout. Gardner, H. (1988). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner H (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gallas, K. (1994). The languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harste, J. C. (2000). Six Points of Departure. In B. Berghoff, K. A. Eawa, J. C. Harste, & B. T. Hoonan (Eds.), Beyond reading and writing: Inquiry, curriculum, and multiple ways of knowing (pp. 1-16). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Heath, S. B. & Wolf, S. A. (2005). Focus in creative learning: Drawing on art for language development. Literacy, 39(1), 3845.

Hull, G. A. & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224-261.

Iyengar, K. M, & Smith, L. (2016). Asian Indian American children's creative writing: An approach for cultural preservation. Educational Studies, 52(2), 95-118.

Kress, G. R. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Maluguzzi, L. (1998). No way. The hundred is there. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred IYENGAR languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advanced reflections (pp. 2-3). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Leander, K. & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading "A pedagogy of multiliteracies": Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 22-46.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Millard, E. & Marsh, J. (2001). Words with pictures: The role of visual literacy in writing and its implication for schooling, Reading, 35(2), 54-61.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2005). Multimodal literacies. Retrieved March 2, 2008 from about/over/positions/category /literacy/123213.htm

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60,92

Olson, J. L. (1992). Envisioning writing: Toward an integration of drawing and writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pahl, K. (2014). The aesthetics of everyday literacies: Home writing practices in a British Asian household. Anthropology & Education, 45(3), 293-311.

Ranker, J.(2009). Redesigning and transforming: A case study of the role of semiotic import in early. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(3),

Skerrett, A. (2016). Attending to pleasure and purpose in multiliteracies instructional practices: Insights from transnational youths. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 115-120.

Short, K., Kauffman, G. & Kahn, L. (2000). I Just Need to Draw: Responding to Literature across Multiple Sign Systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160-171. Retrieved from

Towndrow, P. A., Nelson, M. E., Yusuf, W. M. (2013). Squaring literacy assessment with multimodal design: An analytic case for semiotic awareness. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 327-355.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.