Comparative analysis of domestic and foreign models of choreographic education in the context of modernization of professional training of teachers and performers

Abstract

Modern professional choreographic education is an area of intensive transformation processes, caused by internal needs of artistic culture and external factors of globalization of educational space, digitalization of training and changes in the requirements of the labor market in performing arts, which determines the need for a systematic comparison of Russian and foreign models of training teachers and performers. The national tradition, shaped by the fundamental methodological principles of long-term academic training with early specialization, the predominance of classical repertoire, and an intensive training regime, ensures exceptional technical mastery, discipline, endurance, and stylistic precision, guaranteeing the high demand for graduates in state classical troupes. However, it also reveals limitations in the development of universal competencies, including proficiency in modern dance languages, improvisational skills, choreographic composition, project and research activities, as well as the ability for reflection, self-presentation, and production. In contrast, foreign institutions in the UK, France, the USA, the Netherlands, and Germany offer modular, interdisciplinary, and personalized learning paths with a significantly higher focus on contemporary dance, improvisation, composition, theoretical and analytical disciplines, creative laboratories, and project and production work. This approach fosters the development of a dancer-artist who possesses creativity, analytical thinking, and high professional adaptability in a diversified market that includes contemporary dance companies, commercial projects, freelance work, and interdisciplinary practices. A comparison of the distribution of academic workload reveals fundamental differences: in the Russian model, classical dance accounts for almost twice as much time as in the American or North European model, with minimal time allocated to improvisation and project-based activities. This correlates with the prevalence of group training over research and creative formats, as well as the focus of evaluation criteria on technical purity, stylistic accuracy, and systematic historical and theoretical knowledge. Foreign approaches, on the contrary, increase the weight of creativity, reflection, and independence of artistic decision-making, contributing to a more balanced distribution of graduates across market segments and reducing the risk of professional outflow. These asymmetries in competence profiles and career trajectories reflect the underlying differences in pedagogical paradigms: the reproduction of the canonical tradition and the formation of a cultural heritage performer in the domestic approach, versus the development of an autonomous creative subject in foreign systems. The prospects for modernizing the Russian model lie in the thoughtful integration of elements of foreign experience – expanding the block of modern dance, improvisation, and project activities, updating evaluation procedures, and strengthening pedagogical retraining – while unconditionally preserving the unique advantages of a long-standing classical school, character dance, and continuity, which ensures increased competitiveness, mobility, and compliance with the transforming needs of global artistic culture without losing national identity. This analysis allows us to establish the main content of the article, assess its relevance for specialists in the field of choreographic pedagogy, and make an informed decision about accessing the full text through information retrieval systems.