Hello All , I am looking for your views to help me with a problem stewing in my mind. After two years away from the top of the class I am planning to return to teaching! My problem is that previously I would have taught all of the pressure points, locks, throws take down etc. for each movement to the student of that level straight away. But I have been thinking that this might fool the learning of the basic movement that is required? Or would it better to see where you are going with the movement so as to perform it better? For example: I show a student the movement for a low section block. Then I show them the PP's and other applications in the movement. Have I shown them to much? Will they forget the basic move and take the better looking application? Or, will they perform the movement better for understanding the many applications? What I don't want to happen is like in sparring at most TKD schools, students learn how to perform front, side and turning kicks correctly then when sparring they all look the same? I welcome views from all grades and styles! paulol
I think that you are right that showing them everything at once will hurt the learning curve and confuse them. I would suggest giving them the most obvious application for the movement and give them a chance to learn how to do it properly. After they are profficient, plant the bug in there ear that movements have different applications, give them a couple examples, and let them try to figure some out on their own.
Artikon: good post! I would agree with Artikon. Showing all of the applications at the time of teaching can be very overwhelming. I start with the simplest and then add on as the student progresses. Since we use a belt system, it's easier for me to remember who should be doing what... so, for example, I may show white belts a basic low block, yellow belts get the same plus extra attention to targetting (PPs etc), Green belts get the same plus more resistance/open hands/knife hands in low blocks, and so on. Inm a spiral curriculum, students start basic and as they progress they add more and more applications to theiur skills (which get reviewed as well). Persoanlly I think it's a good way to do it because they get constant reinforcement of the basics and continually add more applications to their arsenal.
Hey man stick with the basics and let them learn applications when THEY are ready as opposed to all at once. They way i do it. If they don't have a problem doing the movement they will learn application on their own(probably) if they are have problems with it. Say, "this movement does this, this movement does that, does it make sense now?" I gives people the chance to learn more than just be taught how to do a movement.
I agreee completely with Hui Lai. I consider lessons as teaching me a way of movement, and specific techniques. But I think that once someone has become proficent with a particular technique then they will see the applications themselves. And as you pointed out, if you try showing them the specific applications before they've come to grips with the technique they'll focus too much on the application, not learn the technique well, and become frustrated when they can't get the application to work because their technique isn't up to it...
Thomas, I like your approach! This is along the lines of what I have been thinking about. Stephen and Hui Lai, I don't want students to be left in the dark on anything so that they end as many do "lose faith in the art". Going so far along the grades and going back to go over the applications is looking like a good idea for me. How far ahead I should go????????
I think theres nothing wrong with teaching pp's etc, after a long time of practicing the art, the move will come out naturally.~
Paulol, Let me ask YOU something? What do you feel comfortable with? Why ask people who don't know you for an answer for something so sacred as teaching. I'm not flaming you but I think that maybe you should looking inside to find out the true meaning of what you teach and how you can convey it to your upcoming fortunate students. What do you want your students to know. How much, how little, how great can you make them, how can you teach them.. Ask yourself some things. Everyone teaches different and i would feel bad if you took my advice and you couldn't keep students. Your their teacher!
Hui Lai Thank you for your heart felt comments. I kinda had my mind made up anyway. But find it had to find like minded TKD'ers here so was just trying to see what other thoughts ppl had?? :love: When I get going I'll keep you all informed !!
Teach them as much as you can straight from the start. Show them the basic move, then show them the 'classic' application, then show them how to think out of the box. Do that for enough moves and they'll be looking to every and any other art to find techniques and to be more inventive than each other. Hopefully you'll end up learning from them!
I've noticed the same thing. Very often the new student is overwhelmed by too much information. I'd say concentrate on the basics, but give them some applications. For a couple reasons: 1. Some people will grasp the movement better when they see it in action. 2. It helps the student see the purpose of the sometimes seemingly endless drills and it will help keep things interesting. If they're doing well with the basics, then they can probably handle more applications.
Only you will know if you can teach MA's. If you're not sure and are still asking basic questions then dont teach. If you feel you can teach something to people without teaching them nonsense then go for it. What style/techniques do you teach?
Thats what I would hope Matt ! If I can produce students with the same frame of mind to MA as myself I'll get more out of it that them !
John , I have trained in a few MA's. But I instruct in ITF based TKD. I have had two schools in the past and I don't have a problem with what I have to pass on to any interested persons. What I am trying to construct is the best possible format to give this information to a student. As I had mentioned before I had already kinda made up my mind on this and was just looking for other ppls thoughts on it. On the "basic questions", I would not be showing TKD in it's commonly recognised format kicking, punching and sparring. When I had my other schools we caused a bit of upset to other TKD BB's who thought that we were misrepresenting TKD. Of course this was not the case, just that we were showing a less sport driven side to the art.
Paulol, I just wanted to applaud your efforts to think about teaching methodology. It's all well and good to say things like "look in your heart" or "if you have doubts, you're not ready to teach." But the fact is that teachers from every discipline undergo continuing training all the time. There are better and worse ways to teach. And new information about which is which comes out all the time. How we learn, how we remember, recall information, etc. As a government contractor, I worked on numerous projects funded to find more effective ways to teach mathematics and science. Believe me, there are concrete ways that teaching can be improved. In my opinion, you're asking a very valid set of questions. As for my answer: I'd say you should start with a basic version of any technique. And then drill it with increasing variables. 1) Mirror practice to get the form down, 2) blocking against a pad, 3) one-step sparring using that technique, 4) sparring drill where the opponent can only throw attacks to a specific target, to be blocked using that technique, and 5) freesparring, but with the student concentrating on applying that technique. So there's a progression in applicability. I think, too often, we teach martial arts as a show and tell. We're more concerned with conveying information than we are with training movement. We set target numbers of techniques and variations to be learned. But we don't stress internalization enough. Look at the average martial arts curriculum. For each belt level, a new set of maneuvers are listed. I think perhaps curricula should list new circumstances under which techniques can be applied instead. So that advancement isn't equated with learning an escalating set of complicated maneuvers. It's equated with increased odds of effectively landing a technique you know. Stuart
I applaud you for having the humility and taking the time to ask such a question. Many instructors become instructors to serve their egos. My thoughts on your question...I suppose that I personally would demonstrate the entire end product I want them to learn, but then teach it to them in stages. The stages would be judged by how wel they grasp the curriculum. I think it helps to know what the final thing loks like and teh practical application, even if I am not learning the entire thing all at once. Best of luck on it.
Cheers Guys ! This thread is turning out to be as interesting as I had hoped it would be. With this kind of approach to training it is almost (dare I say it) like constructing a new TKD style. As we all know that, and Thomas has touched on above, the schools who call themselves "Clubs" and train only for the competitions and Olympics, are the ones who the main public sees as what TKD is. I found with my old schools that we lost 30 to 40 % of new pupils due to the fact that we were not spending 90 % of class time in Sparring gear. Even though we did spar and do drill work every week. It is just another part of the course to me and should not over shadow the rest of the MA. The pupils that did stay with us though were always top of their grading groups and done fine in sparring. Not all winners, but good technicians landing solid techniques, and well able to defend themselves!
No worries paulol. In some ways, yeah. I don't know how other people define style. Or whether that changes with a different training methodology. But personally, I think there's a need to reevaluate how we convey information. And I've been a fan of Thomas' posts because he seems to implement a lot of the new ideas I've come across on teaching. I've been thinking about how I'd retool my own teaching as well. (I'm not teaching right now, but I daresay I will again at some point soon.) Too often before, I felt like teaching consisted of me reaching into a duffel bag and pulling out some drill, form, or exercise I'd done in the past and presenting it to the class as if it were an end in and of itself. "Learn this. Then you'll have it. The same way I have it." That focus seems wrong to me now. It seems like lessons should probably start with an observed need and work backward from there. "Leg kicks are a popular technique these days. And we haven't spent much time learning to either deliver them or defend against them. Now what do I have in this duffel bag that might help with that? Or do I need to delve into a different duffel bag to address this situation?" In any event, hats off to anybody willing to take a good long look at how they teach, take a look at the research being done on the subject, and do some work on it. Keep it up paulol. Stuart
