Black belt doesn't mean you're a coach

There was a small piece in this month's Jiu-Jitsu Style which referenced an article in OCWeekly.com by Dr Mark Dearing.

In that article, Dearing claimed that "a lot of coaches, they get their black belts and become like a tight mafia. All the information that those coaches know stays with them, they're not proliferating the information."

In taekwondo, karate and other TMAs I'm familiar with, it's common practice to have a separate instructor qualification to your black belt. I think it's an absolute must because (I think) being able to do a technique well does not mean you can teach that technique well.

The science of teaching a class and how to structure long-term training programs is another consideration.

So, a few questions.

1) Does your martial art/gym/organisation require a separate instructor qualification? If so, what are the general requirements (e.g. x number of days/hours training) and how do you personally rate the qualification?

2) Do you think a separate instructor qualification is necessary?

3) What knowledge do you think an instructor should have?

I'll give my answers below:

1) Yes. At least, with every taekwondo and karate organisation I've trained with. Less so with kickboxing and other "ring" sports. The requirements for my last TKD association were quite flimsy: a two-part course which didn't really offer much except general guidelines on teaching a class (which I thought was very flawed); the second part was more or less a clone of the first part; you only had to attend the course once (there was no re-certification needed); and there was no follow-up mentoring. The coaching qualification for my current karate organisation is tied into the Dan grades (i.e. you learn and are assessed on coaching ability as you go up the grades). For example, for my 3rd Dan last year I had to not only know all the grading material up to that point, I had to sit multiple written exams, pass a fitness test, and already possess an NVQ 3 in fitness instructing, a first-aid certificate, and clock up hundreds of hours of monitored coaching. I have to re-certify every two years whether or not I'm testing for my next belt.

2) Absolutely.

3) Knowledge of the syllabus (not just knowing the names of the techniques, but all of the ins and outs of said techniques); first aid; pass a criminal background check; anatomy and exercise physiology (at least to a basic level) including the principles of sports training; the science of teaching (e.g. communication techniques, goal setting, how to structure a lesson plan); observed coaching with feedback provided by the assessor; the need to recertify every couple of years; and "spot inspections" by an external assessor.

 

Nice post VZ...

...here are my answers

1)
My Club runs 2 accredited (with the BCKA) qulaifications, 1 for Assistant Instructor, and then further down the line, a 2nd for full Instructor. The minimum requirements for the Assistants qualification is 3 years training (or 4th Kyu and above) Then ideally a further2 years, gaining hands on teaching experience, before taking the Instructor development course.

These are broken down in to 2 section, with section 1 being a full day's 'Classroom' session, and section 2 being a predetermined number lessons planned and run, which will then be assessed by 3 Instructors, with a couple of 'Mystery shopper' type students scattered amongst the class.

2)
Yes, absolutely...!

3)
Rather than just repeating all that has been covered by VZ above, I will merely agree that all points are relevant, and add a couple of my own. 1) As a self protection Instructor, a good working knowledge (or better) of UK self defense laws are a must, as are understanding HAOV, and early warning signs (cooper's colour code for example) to name but a few. 2) Expanding VZ's science of teaching, I will add being aware that there 3 main types of learners, auditory, (learn by listening) visual, (learn by seeing) and kinesthetic (learn by doing) and being able to identify each.

Regards,

Travess

 

If you mean BCKA, as in Pete Consterdine, nice. Harder to find a more reputable quality mark than that in the UK.

The mystery shopper was something I'd never considered before now! Sure, we ask our students for regular feedback, but the mystery shopper angle adds a whole new level of honesty to it. Think I might "appropriate" (steal) that idea from you!

 

The very same.

You are welcome to it

It is a good 'Tool' so to speak, which also teaches you to put aside any personal differences you may have had with any fellow students, when you were coming up through the ranks...

...which I guess would be another key point to be a good instructor?

Travess

 

Interesting topic. I think the question of rank vs. teaching/coaching ability pops up fairly often these days and I think it carries a fair bit of merit. So here's my answers.

1) No. I'm from a tiny, not for profit dojo. The way I was taught personally was that during my time from 3rd kyu to 1st Dan I spent around a third of my dojo time shadowing my instructor and assisting in teaching and coaching. I got feedback during and after each session and was given advice on dealing with different approaches to teaching different people.

2)I think it depends. I don't think having a separate qualification is a necessity but I think focused attention and time spent learning to teach/coach is. I also think it depends on the discipline. Leaning more towards sport based disciplines or for people that are going to be coaching as a career, definitely.

3)Pretty much echoing what has already been posted. Also meeting a minimum level of demonstrable fitness and a minimum of X logged hours coaching both supervised and unsupervised every year.

 

I'm actually very good and qualified to teach people non martial arts related stuff. I'd like to see guys take a 6 month college course before teaching.

 

I don't think qualifications are a necessity as long as the instructor has good knowledge of what they are teaching. A piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper. It doesn't suddenly make you a better teacher than someone without it.

I know a lad who did Kickboxing for 12 years before he even took his first belt. He was a better teacher than many other instructors I've come across in the same art.

I just see grading as a way for a club/organisation to make money via a carrot on a stick mentality more than anything else.

 

If a school is organised well, the structure of the syllabus should also train seniors to become teachers... if they want and if they are good enough.

Some folk are better teachers than others - but you still need to have a good understanding of what is being transmitted.

Dan grade ultimately means very little, but as long as folk don't leg it (and form their own associations at 1st Dan) - I see know reason why dan grades - with a flair for teaching can't grow into the roll without "formal" qualifications.

Under the watchful eye of a good group of instructors, you could look at it as a form of apprenticeship.

The missus is a school teacher (and a very big boss one at that) and she feels that the way our group approaches prepping teachers tops what most LEA's offer here in the UK... but no external quals are taken.

 

I think their should be a separate teaching qualification.

teaching anything is a separate skill from actually doing that thing.

hence why uni lecturers and pHd students are usually great for research but terrible teachers (save a few)

 

In ACSCA, one will need at least the 3rd degree black belt to be able to teach. It may take 10 years.

He has to know how to apply

- techniques (X),
- defense and counters against those techniques (Y -> X),
- defense and counters against those defense and counters which against those techniques (Z -> Y -> X),

In other words, a instructor will need to know at least 3 levels deep on each and every techniques that he will teach.

Also since in ACSCA, the 2nd degree black belt requirement is the tournament experience, all instructors will be able to help their students to compete in tournament by sharing their personal experience.

 

Traditional Chinese martial arts are very often very much at the behest of the Sifu. There comes a point where Sifu thinks you're competent enough to teach. As I went through training I observed what my Sifu did was "you're good at X, this guy is learning X, you go teach him." So the seniors very much end up learning how to teach along the way. It also clarifies for you as you learn. If the other person doesn't understand from your explanation or style of teaching then Sifu will come and correct which cements what is right technically and also gives students the chance to observe him teaching via multiple methods.
Even my Sifu recognizes though that not everyone comes through that with teaching proficiency and that it was easier on those of us who had been training a long time and who had cross trained.

I think it's a good idea but not always necessary. Some of us didn't need extra help in teaching but there are always people who do. I also think that there is material which is either more academic or doesn't fit as well within the curriculum. Standardization can be both good and bad so I'm somewhat torn.

-How to teach
-Legal knowledge pertaining to national/regional laws and case laws on use of force - if they don't I think they should hire someone for a use of force course at least every year.
-Technical knowledge of the style - yes this comes after legal knowledge of use of force IMO)
-Knowledge of HAOV and common self defense scenarios - hopefully based on regional statistics
-Basic knowledge of exercise science - because you need to be able to understand how the body works
-Historical knowledge - because context and understanding where your martial art fits, how it functions, and how it has changed are important to understanding how it works now, but this does come last.

I'm probably missing a few things...

But I think even though knowledge is important demeanor can be important as well. I have trained with people who were very skilled but who were either too impatient, or self centered, or what have you, to be able to teach effectively. I guess that's another good reason for having a separate instructor qualification.

 

In our dojo it goes like this as well. We are a small dojo, ad this is how I eventually became instructor. There are 2 sempai at our dojo. When our sensei was away for a while for his job, we ended up teaching class for real, and we still do whenever the sensei is absent.

Like Ben said, we rolled into it by teaching individual techniques to individual people along the way.

 

I get what you are saying, but I still think there needs to be some formal education for instructors on certain areas that should be part of running a martial arts class. Things like First Aid training and Child Welfare training etc....

There was a TKD class in NI a while back. The instructor decided to do circuits in class. One of the students had a heart problem and collapsed during this training. Turned out no one in the class (including the instructor) had any first aid training. Luckily there were leisure centre staff on hand who knew what to do and were able to help.

 

It should be the criteria of anyone teaching anything, to first LEARN other aspects of what they intend to teach

For example, a person teaching a dog training class, should become aware of food, products, and other information (This is not to state they should get a Veterinarian Degree/License)



Black belt doesn't mean you're a xxxxcoachxxxxx ....nor fighter

 

I can agree on that though I dont think Child Welfare training's a necessity, though First Aid should be mandatory.

 

Sometime ago when I had schools, my wife is a educator...she guided me through her scholastic syllabus converting it towards kids in martial arts

She was instrumental in adding to my instruction

Yet, I had known others, who by being parents and martial artists, had experience in child instruction